User talk:Tóraí/Archive/Archive 10

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
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 Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

OOo/AOO
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)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 2)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 3)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 4)  is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
 * 5)  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)  is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see ).
 * 7)  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 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
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , 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
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
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.
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. WikiDan61 ChatMe!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
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" &rarr; "organization") or it may change a more appropriate choice of language to a less appropriate term (e.g. "British-Irish Agreement" &rarr; "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
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
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
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, Ocaasit &#124; c 16:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Somme losses
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
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)

Rockall
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
It is this one. What did I say- Trying to inject humor here. I also gave 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?
With this edit and this one, 92.11.xxx.xxx 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: 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
Hello,, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Rockall Bank dispute, appears to be directly copied from http://pustakalaya.olenepal.org/wiki/wp/r/Rockall.htm. 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)

5Bengal
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
Can you have a look at Ukraine–European Union relations too? It needs clarification for non-EU/non-Soviet audiences as well. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Luasog down?
The site http://luasog.sourceforge.net/ 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
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 Jonathan.Cardy@Wikimedia.org.uk 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
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?
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)


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


 * ✅ --Tóraí (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ireland
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
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)
 * There are no 'official languages' in the UK (which includes Northern Ireland. The Gaelic language (also known as Irish Gaelic or simply Irish) is a recognised minority language in Northern Ireland. The dialect spoken there is known as Ulster Irish. Legal protection for the language in Northern Ireland stems largely from the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. (REF.:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language_in_Northern_Ireland)Ériugena (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Garda controversy talk page
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)


 * 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)


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

WP:JSTOR access
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
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.234.10 (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Population of Ireland since 1600
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 18.4.2.1 (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)

Bebuzee
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
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&#39;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
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)

Indigenous demographics on Republic of Ireland page
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
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!
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
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)gmail.com. See the minutes of the last meeting here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaie/2014-October/000241.html
 * 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 ga.wiki if you haven't already done that  ~ R.T.G 13:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Republic of Ireland v Southern Ireland
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)

Jayme K. article
Hi Tóraí;

I added a speedy deletion tag to the Jayme K. article as an identical article about the same topic with the same sources had been nominated for deletion and deleted here. As such, it seems to me that the re-hash of the article should be deleted. Could you advise? Ninetytwoseventeen (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Deleted now. There doesn't appear to have been a substantial change in notability since.
 * Thanks. I didn't see the previous discussion topic because it was under a article title and wasn't linked. --Tóraí (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tar ag spraoi sesame.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Tar ag spraoi sesame.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

✅ See Articles for deletion/Tar ag Spraoi Sesame. --Tóraí (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Too Quick?!
You deleted the page but you didnot bother to see that the text was from 2 x sources, one a news source and other a journal. Both of which were quoted in the reference list. The blog is the one which copy pasted the text from the news sites. How can you say that the text came from the blog and NOT the sources? You could have told me that the text is copyrighted as it was copied from the 2 x sources I have provided, but saying that it was copyrighted to a blog is not understandable? I was in the process of paraphrasing the info to that article so that the copyright issue could be sorted out. But then, you were too quick! —Trip Wire  talk 13:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi TripWire,
 * I compared the text in the article to the text in the blog. Whole sections were word-for-word the same. Therefore, I deleted it as a copyright violation.
 * Paraphrasing is fine so long as it is not too close to the original. However, the copyright violation had to go. Even if they are in the page history (i.e. not in the current revision) copyright violations have to be deleted.
 * I dropped you a note because I could see that you were acting in good faith. For more information on policy around copyright violations, see See Copyright violations. --Tóraí (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanx for the response. Blogs are no authority. We all know that. I dont care what the blog says, because if the blogger has copied the original text from the source, it is his fault. So, you cannot say that I have violated the copyright info off the blog?? Yes, if you say that I should have rephrased the text while taking from the source (and not the blog), that was understandable. I have seen the blog now, i can see that the blogger has copied the entire news to its blog from which I took some info, but I dont understand, from where did you se the following words, word-to-word on the blog, because i took them from a journal which the blog does not contain:
 * "The Chamalang coalfields lie in the Districts Kohlu, Barkhan, and Loralai. It spreads over 500 sq. miles and is bounded by longitude 69015’ to 69045’east and latitude 300 00’ to 300 15’ north. The Chamalang and Bala Dhaka are the main villages of the area and are situated about 35 and 28 miles north of Kohlu respectively. The roads between these areas are partly metalled and shingled. Now the Pak Army has built a new road from Mekhtar to Chamalang, which is the main linkage and approached road for all types of communication and traveling."
 * I am surprised how did you even find the blog? Because it never crossed me during my research? —Trip Wire  talk 14:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Another user flagged it as a copyright violation. Whether you copied it from the blog or another source is immaterial. Please don't copy and paste content from other sources into Wikipedia. Thank you. --Tóraí (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That another user must be the IP 82.11.33.86? And should I recreate the page after rephrasing/paraphrasing the sourced text? —<font color="DarkMagenta">Trip <font color="DarkSlateGray">Wire  talk 20:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, just re-create the page using original text (i.e. not another copyright violation). --Tóraí (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks —<font face="Eras Demi ITC" size="3px"><font color="DarkMagenta">Trip <font color="DarkSlateGray">Wire  talk 21:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of article
Hi. You removed one (Abrar Mir) of the 2 articles that I created with the user Quadriacapital that was initially meant as a test. Could you kindly delete the other article Dr. Amit Varma as well with accordance to G7 in the speedy deletion criteria?

FYI I am also using the account Econline1992. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.90.36.172 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Tóraí (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

re A Fantástica Fábrica de Cadáver
The article was A9'ed since the musician does not have an article. If you follow the link Carlos Eduardo Taddeo it is a redirect to the band of which the artist is a member. Also see Articles for deletion/Eduardo (rapper). Please reconsider the A9.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  22:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Somebody else might have called it differently but I'm conservative when it comes to CSD. From WP:CSD: "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." The AfD for Eduardo (rapper) was closed a "redirect" rather than "delete", there's an argument that that's the article on him.
 * If you want to A9 it again and see how somebody else calls it, I won't object. However, I see you've already put it up for deletion in the usual way. I suggest that's the best determine consensus. --Tóraí (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies
I just noticed you left me a talk page message under "Easter Rising' but some time ago.  Is it still relevant? <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 22:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like it. You wanted me to take prompt action two years ago ;-) --Tóraí (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

please remove deletion notice
Can you remove the deletion notice from the Californians Against Waste wikipedia page?

Please let me know if there are any questions I can answer regarding your concerns about this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briano88 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Semi Ajayi
Could I get you to explain in more detail why you declined the speedy deletion of this article? As far as I can tell, Mr Ajayi has not received substantially more coverage since April, and has not played a match that would qualify him for WP:NFOOTY. Am I missing something here? Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I thought he had played for Cardiff. That would have significantly changed the reasons for the previous deletion. Deleted now. --Tóraí (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk page references
After almost 10 years I happened to see this template Reflist-talk used very recently, so perhaps instead of commenting out talk page refs you can sub this instead. Personally I have not used it yet but it looks useful. ww2censor (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Handy to know. I'll leave things as they are now unless someone objects. Might use that in future. --Tóraí (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dublin Web Summit logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Dublin Web Summit logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Tóraí!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Tóraí, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

stats.grok.se
Cheers Tóraí!

I've seen you created some documentation for http://stats.grok.se/. Any idea what happened to the site? It only returns "internal server error" for the past 2 months (example). Is it offline now somehow, what's the issue? Perhaps you know.

All the best and thanks in advance! -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't know. I'm just created the template. I've nothing to do with the site. --Tóraí (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

RA
I never knew that you were Rannpháirtí anaithnid until five minutes ago. If I had of my interactions with you would have been more vocal and understanding. Mabuska (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks - but I hadn't noticed! You're always reasonable and friendly. --Tóraí (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been five years, today.
Wishing Tóraí a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 14:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge
Hi, at The 10,000 Challenge we're striving to bring about 10,000 article improvements and creations for the UK and Ireland and inspire others to create more content. In order to achieve this we need diversity of content, in all parts of the UK and Ireland on all topics. Eventually a regional contest will be held for all parts of the British Isles, like they were for Wales and the Wedt Country. We currently have just over 1900 articles and need contributors! If you think you'd be interested in collaborating on this and helping reach the target quicker, please sign up and begin listing your entries there as soon as possible! Thanks.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rocket.Chat
As you are a software engineer previously involved on a similar discussion, I'd welcome your opinion on the discussion. Thanks you. Gabriel engel (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Aleeti Ramaiah Pally


The article Aleeti Ramaiah Pally has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable

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 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 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. Amisom (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Granite Media, article
Hi Torai,

I noticed that you deleted the article for Granite Media today. I believe this is because I created the page without knowing that I shouldn't do so if I am associated with the company. I'm sorry about that. I was logged in, trying to be transparent.

I think it's a worthwhile page to have up given that we recently secured $2 million in seed capital and are an established founding team with other references on Wikipedia. I tried to write the article with a factual and unbiased voice. Would you be willing to republish the page or start a new one with the information provided on the company?

Thank you for your consideration.

Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyMamone (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tony.
 * There is a small set of reasons why a page can be summarily deleted from Wikipedia. The usual process is that a user flags the page as meeting one of these reasons and then an admin reviews it and makes a call.
 * One of the reasons is that the page is an "Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Merely securing funding for a business venture, or because people involved have previously been involved in a notable business, is no reason to assume that this business is important or significant.
 * (Don't take that to heart. I'm merely stating our stand-point as authors of an encyclopedia. It's not any assumption about where you will take Granite Media business in future. And I wish you the best of luck in that.)
 * If the business is very closely related to Livingly Media, you may be able to add a (very short e.g. one sentence) reference to in that article by way of a bye-the-bye comment. But that will be a call for the contributors to that article. If they don't think it's relevant it may get nixed from there as well.
 * In the long run, I suggest holding up until Granite Media is a notable success in its own right. Wikipedia isn't an advertising platform or a Yellow Pages - and neither is inclusion on Wikipedia a requirement to be successful.--Tóraí (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Image on Wikipedia 'Ireland' page regarding population growth through the years 1600 to 2000
A Chara,

Cad é mar atá tú?

Or as the English forced our Ancestors to say "How do you do?"

I was struck by the image of the population growth and decline in those years 1600 to 2000.

It was not the first occasion that I have seen such an image.

It was on one slide of a lecture and presentation slide show about a historical event "Napoleon III, nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, visit to Ireland"

What struck me so much about that graph, although it was shown only briefly, was not the huge decline following the famines from 1840s onward.

That is something that most Irish people would be familiar with.

It was the first part, i.e. the rapid growth of the population.

This puzzled me considerably.

What was it that caused such a rapid growth among a mainly peasant population?

It strikes me as remarkable.

My own interest is in finding out about how prevalent was the speaking of the Irish Language in those years, particularly in the North of Leinster.

There seems to have been a correlation between the decline of the population and the decline of speaking Irish.

Was that cause and effect?

I don't know but I am very curious.

Is mise le meas,

Brenmur777 (The Reluctant Historian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenmur777 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Mediation request
Hello Tóraí! In January 2010 you were kind enough to offer me your help, if ever needed, as a mediator. I'm rather proud to say that has not been needed for all these years, until now. I'm very confused about current policy re: reliable sources. Are we no longer able to use full-page and cover articles from mainstream newspapers just because they are from the 1960s and 1970s, or reliably published books because they are old and/or not in English? If that's the case I have contributed a lot of article text for over 10 years which now, for all intents and purposes on Wikipedia, is unreferenced, and I must immediately stop contributing text with that kind of references. Shall I ask this question at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources or what can I do? It's like a nightmare. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you link to why you believe mainstream newspapers are no longer considered reliable sources?. See WP:NEWSORG. Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I interpreted this that way, after all these years of relative stability, and also similar tags on Wild Side Story and Birgit Ridderstedt. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the only way to interpret the flagging of the article. I note that the article has been deleted (twice) on the Swedish Wikipedia. The easiest way to sort this out is to nominate the article for deletion here on the same grounds, which I will do now. --Tóraí (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nominated here Articles for deletion/Jacob Truedson Demitz. --Tóraí (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel I'm being hounded here after having asked that user 6 times to stop on my talk page. Am I under any obligation to reply? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You do not have to reply but if you have been asked about a COI connection I believe that you should reply. Domdeparis (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not following you around, have not been, and will not be. If you'd kindly refrain from following me around, I would feel much less distressed and would really appreciate it. That would constructive for the project. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This person nominated the page at your request so naturally I wanted to see the content of the request and as you have mentioned me in the request I believe it is normal to make a comment. I have now asked you at least half a dozen times to disclose your relationship and you have not done so. I believe that this is required. You have been very open on commons with the fact that you have some relationship with him and the cabaret as you refer to the cabaret and tye company that owns the rights to their photos as "we" so I would like you to say clearly what your relationship is. Domdeparis (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not request that the page be nominated. That's a fabrication. As for the rest of it, I will not (not) be responding to you (to you) on these demands of yours, and now I'm asking you for the 8th time (!): leave me alone! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens


The article List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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 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 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.

Shikha Talsania
Hello,

This page was deleted in Janaury-2018. I have re-created the page as Shikha Talsania now not an unknown person in Bollywood. Her latest movie has also started well.

Request you to please re-review.

Thanks, Vikram Maingi (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Corey Ellis (rapper)
Hi Tóraí. Perhaps you hadn't noticed that the page is a substantially identical article to Corey Ellis (musical artist). Corey Ellis (musical artist) was deleted only two weeks ago per Articles for deletion/Corey Ellis (musical artist) and it included the very same sentence that you use to suggest it may be notable. You wrote: declining speedy ("His single "There You Go" reached over 500,000+ on Spotify"), but feel free to XfD for notability. But it was already AFD'd for that lack of notability despite that parameter present. The point of a WP:G4 tag is that editors should not have to go through another AFD discussion again when the exact same article is recreated. I'm requesting that you revert your decline. — Cactus Writer (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, the same article was also deleted in May at Articles for deletion/Corey Ellis (Rapper) with the deletion endorsed at Deletion review/Log/2018 August 5. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What happened was I had just declined speedy under A7 at 22:28. I saw the article re-appear again for speedy five minutes later. I'm not sure if I was looking at a cache or what happened but I could swear it was still A7 when I saw it again at 22:34. That's why I declined it then with the message I did. But I see from the log now that your request was for G4. --Tóraí (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. That happens to all of us. No harm -- the page was retagged by another editor and subsequently deleted, the multiple iterations have been salted and an SPI initiated against the socks. Cheers. — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Red Hand Commando and the Irish language
Hi Tóraí,

I thought I'd best take this to you, as an admin who's familiar with Irish politics and language. The article notes that the group has the Irish motto Lámh Dearg Abú, but for the past month an unregistered user (with more than one IP address) has been persistently replacing "Irish" with "Ulster gaelic". I added references to show that it's indeed called an Irish motto, but the IP user keeps reverting and removing the references. I wasn't sure whether to take it to the edit warring noticeboard (as they haven't broken the 3RR or 1RR), the vandalism noticeboard (as it doesn't seem to fall under "obvious vandalism"), or somewhere else. I'd be grateful if you could do something or point me in the right direction. ~Asarlaí 17:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Asarlaí, open an RFC on the talk page and post a message to WikiProject Ireland inviting comment. --Tóraí (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

What do I need to provide to Keep Manashe Khaimov page?
I believe there were a miscommunication, the page is legit and I provided an article that was written about Manashe Khaimov

Manashe Khaimov Page
Hello,

I am not sure why Manashe Khaimov page was deleted. Please let me know so I can provide you the information need it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costco101 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, Costco101. The article was deleted following a (short) discussion here on the basis that the subject the subject wasn't considered notable. --Tóraí (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BISE/comments
Template:BISE/comments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

File:BI-lang-pc.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BI-lang-pc.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
<div class="notice" style="background:#fff1d2; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height:40px; line-height:130.7%; font-weight: 130.7%;"> <span style="color:#5871C6;cursor:pointer" class="mw-customtoggle-ArbCom_2019_special_circular"> <div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" id="mw-customcollapsible-ArbCom_2019_special_circular" style="display:none"> <div style="border-style: dotted; border-color: #886644; border-width: 0 3px 3px 3px; padding: 0 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em;">

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted page
Why was this redirect page speedy deleted? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_note10 Taewangkorea (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It was marked as being a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. The article was created in August and had no in-coming links. --Tóraí (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not think it would classify as R3 because Galaxy Note10 appears to be a common typo, judging from this google analytics page showing the similar levels of searches for Galaxy note10, note9, and note8 (currently, Galaxy Note10 appears to have the highest search interest) and also considering that the pages for the previous note phones Galaxy Note9 and Galaxy Note8 have their own redirect pages. Thus, I do not think that this would meet the implausible criteria of R3. Taewangkorea (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW the redirect I was wanting to create is Galaxy Note10 but for some reason Galaxy note10 was created as a mistake. I assume that the capitalized title would not meet R3? Taewangkorea (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

 * Goodness me! 8 years. I must remember you if I need any admin favours. ww2censor (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"British-Irish Agreement" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect British-Irish Agreement. Since you had some involvement with the British-Irish Agreement redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesome Hwyh  19:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * TheAwesomeHwyh, I've created it here: User:TheAwesomeHwyh/The_Eternal_Castle. --Tóraí (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The Eternal Castle
Hi! Do you believe it might be possible to restore the The Eternal Castle article in a personal work space of mine? Many thanks in advance! --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:#E6E6FA; border: 1px solid #7D00B3; margin: 0.5em auto; padding: 0.5em; width:90%; text-align: center"> Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Apache Flex.png
Thanks for uploading File:Apache Flex.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
<div style="display: flex; align-items: center; height: 60px; padding: 1em; border: solid 7px orchid; background-color: yellow;"> '''Wishing Tóraí a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Best wishes! CAPTAIN RAJU''' (T) 20:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Nagoya Castle2.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nagoya Castle2.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gaeilge
Template:Gaeilge has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing of Template:Stats.grok.se at templates for discussion
Template:Stats.grok.se has been listed at templates for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFXtalk 23:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wide template
Template:Wide template has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. George Ho (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)