User talk:Gaillimh/Archive 2

Leave a Message for Gaillimh
	Hi there, and thank you for dropping by my talk page! Want to leave me a message? Click that link above. Please be sure to add a title and signature (~~~~) to your messages. Cheers!

My archived talk
Archive 1 — 3 January 2007 – 19 March 2007
Archive 2 — 20 March 2007 – 4 April 2007
Archive 3 — 5 April 2007 – 19 May 2007
Archive 4 — 6 April 2007 – 3 November 2007

RfA

I can't help but point out that this comment is blatant misinformation. WP:CANVASS does not apply at all to the listing at WP:AWNB. Please retract your comment as it it is unfair to the candidate.--cj | talk 03:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS most certainly does apply to the listing at WP:AWNB. I suggest re-reading the page, specifically the bit about "friendly posting". Attempting to skew process at an RfA is, of course, disruptive. Thanks for the comment and please feel free to get back in touch with any further questions or concerns gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you point where WP:AWNB has been disruptive? That is, of course, while assuming good faith?--cj | talk 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As a whole, WP:AWNB is a great resource. I participate in and utilise a similar resource, WP:IWNB. The only "disruptive" practise I can see is directing people towards specific RfA's which they are likely to support gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This listing is not solicitation, it is information. Hence, it accords with WP:CANVASS. Your belief that people viewing the notice are more "likely to support" is unfounded. --cj | talk 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is solicitation, as it is an overt attempt to direct people to Mr. Billington's RfA. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 04:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is not based on policy. It assumes an inherent menace on the part of AWNB users. The listing is completely neutral, with no attempt to influence opinions on the candidate one way or another. In other words, it does not solicit. So again, WP:CANVASS is irrelevant.

With regards to this comment, I should point out that I do not question your right to oppose the candidate. I just did not think it fair to let misinformation go unchallenged. --cj | talk 04:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, thanks for the note! Of course, our primary disagreement is the validity, or lack thereof, of listing RfA's on the notice board, so where I simply see information, you see misinformation. In addition, there is no assumption of "inherent menance" of AWNB users on my part. That is simply a gross misinterpretation of my comments by you gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 04:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't allege that you assume menace, but I certainly feel that is the implication arising from your argument – a subverting of process by AWNB users. I'd like to return to the original point, however. Your statement on the candidacy alleges that it "is currently being canvassed for support at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Announcements." This claim remains unsubstantiated, so, with due respect, I again ask you to retract the comment.--cj | talk 04:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

<---

I find it rather surprising to see you quoting discussions at RfA in which you havent participated and which has already been resolved claim them as being ongoing. Please stop trying to make a point as the current policy permits such notices see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notice. If you wish to change the policy then bring a proposal to WT:RFA and let the community decide. Gnangarra 04:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that adding RfA's to WikiProjects falls under the scope of a "friendly notice" as described at WP:CANVASS. Also, please revist WP:POINT, as its application to my edits certainly does not apply gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering WP:POINT says Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. which is what you are current doing by repetitive removal of the RfA notices. Your point has been made the first time, the two further removals today are being disruptive. Since you feel strongly about these notices please bring a proposal to RfA for the community to comment on. Gnangarra 04:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already suggested many a venue for a third opinion and a fresh set of eyes on the talk page of the AWNB and haven't received a response (even though people have showed up to re-insert RfA's in the notice board). gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 04:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sammycon

I see that you unblocked Sammycon (talk · contribs) who then immediately resumed edit warring. However, that's not what I'm contacting you about. Sammycon issued a specific legal threat and I'm trying to verify with you that this threat was withdrawn prior to your unblocking the user. If not, we should immediately reblock under WP:NLT. Could you please confirm one way or another? Thanks. --Yamla 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

He sent me an email asserting he has, so no need to answer.  :) --Yamla 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

JS Talk page

Uhm, Why did you archive that page? I'm sure you had good reasons, but we just archived a big portion of it last week. Was there a specific reason? Did someone specifically request it? --Otheus 02:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for the confusion; I mentioned OTRS in my edit summary but forgot that it's not a well-known acronym, hehe (check out OTRS or meta:OTRS for more information). There was an issue that arose whereby sensitive information needed to be immediately removed from plain view. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Otheus 02:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I find this hard to accept. First, it has been done messily, with archive 5 still having all the header stuff from the talk page, complete with now invalid links to the other archives. And the talk page itself says that its an archive! Also, the talk page appears to have no edit history (because that moved with the archive). I could probably correct the first two of them myself, I guess, but not the third. If there was a real problem on the page, was it necessary to move the entire page, including very recent discussions, rather than just the offending bit? Are you able to tell me anything about the issue (even by e-mail), such as which bit was the problem, was the sensitive information about Sarfati or someone else, or the nature of the issue? Philip J. Rayment 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Philip, please do what you need to fix it. Gaillimh, like all OTRS volunteers has a huge amount of external emails with which he is dealing with for the foundation. Therefore expediency is always the best approach to sensitivity. Nothing that has been removed cannot be restored. Cary Bass ^demandez 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'd do that, except that I can't fix the edit history (i.e. restore it to the talk page). Shouldn't that also be done? Wouldn't it be better to move it back (which is what I'm sure I can't do), then cut and paste to the archive? Philip J. Rayment 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Philip! I've gone ahead and made some more changes. Give the talk page a look now and see if I've done what you were asking about. If I haven't, feel free to get back in touch and let me know gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 16:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks good. Do I take it from your lack of a response that you can say nothing about the issue that prompted all this? Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The Irish Famine (book)

On 24 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Irish Famine (book), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd IRC behaviour

Your IRC nick ocee has behaved very oddly in the last few minutes on the freenode network. After discussion with several channel staff, we believe that your IRC nickname may have been compromised. Please e-mail me as soon as you get this message. I have temporarily quieted you in a number of channels until this can be resolved. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Seconding this - it happened in -admins, and I've been told it happened in the main wikipedia channel as well. Daniel Bryant 06:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

#wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, and #wikipedia-en-admins that I'm aware of. Channel operator privileges were used in the former instance. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sore loser?

Look, I know the Dubs walked the new brilliant Gaillimh Hurling team last week in Parnell but that is no reason to throw a rediculous tantrum over my name. If you actually looked through my archive discussions rather than just jumping into a rediculous debate, you would see this name of mine has already been discussed and that it was agreed I would keep my name but change my editing name. Cheers.--Play Brian Moore 13:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I believe that the Tribesmen are first in the rankings! Of course this has nothing to do with the NHL, but with your username. I hope you'll note that I didn't launch into any debate, ridiculous or otherwise. I'm simply telling you that your username must be changed or you will be blocked. There are policies in place to this effect (namely WP:USERNAME), and if you choose not to abide by them, you will be blocked. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

One can see that this user is attempting to use the word "Fenian" as an insult as his full username is "Fenian Swine" Wrong! My rebuttle to this read I'm a Republican, I want a United Ireland so therefore the name is not intended to be offensive. Did you take the finger out and look through the old debates? No, I somehow didn't think you would. I have been here far longer than you and therefore I know what is acceptable. If my name is so offensive, how come it hasn't been picked up on yet? How come I haven't been indefinitely blocked from here? The answer obvious (to most) is of course that the name is a reference to the movie Michael Collins, it is not intended to be offensive at all(a quick look through my contribution history will show you I am not anti-Republican/anti-Nationalist in anyway). Only someone with too much time on their hands would actually follow this farcical debate. Go easy.--Play Brian Moore 18:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As you already know, you were originally indefinitely blocked for having an inappropriate username and were unblocked because an admin thought that your username was "not offensive enough." Being from Ireland, I know (as do you) that your name is obviously offensive. I did look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fenian Swine and your talk page archives and found absolutely no community support for such a silly username. With regards to the movie, I've a hard time taking anything in which Alan Rickman portrays Eamon de Valera seriously, haha. In all seriousness, however, please consider this a final warning to initiate a request at WP:CHU. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I say read my archives, he checks requests for comments!? A dev/fianna fáiler, I should have known. My picture of Michael Collins is just too much for him. Consider this a final rebuttle on this point.--Play Brian Moore 23:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read my comments (Also, I'm not sure how you could think I am a member of FF) :) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 23:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I called you a Fianna Fáiler, a follower of Fianna Fáil. Where did I state anything about you being a party member. Yes, I was originally blocked and then unblocked because of the fact that I make worthwhile contributions. Having been here longer than you and having been through two debates over my name (notice I still have my name), I honestly don't see you having any success with this debate. Maybe should address the questions I ask, it would make this little debate a lot smoother. Is míse --Play Brian Moore 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is no debate. Please change your username. If you do not, you will be blocked. The only reason I didn't immediately block you upon seeing your username is because you have made some good contributions to articles. Also, to clarify, I most certainly do not follow FF. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why so sensitive about Mr.Rickman playing the long fellow so? Like I said, I won't be blocked. My editing record is far longer and more distinguished than your's and as I've stated God knows how many times before, I haven't been permanently blocked here before over the name. How you can find Irish Republican pig offensive goes beyond me. Still, let the tantrum continue.--Play Brian Moore 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you refuse to comply with Wikipedia's username policy. As I've tried to work with you on changing your username and have been rebuffed, I have gone ahead and blocked you for having a blatantly offensive username. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, bravo. Don't you worry though, I'll be back on here very soon. I'm far more respected than you, a common swine. Hopefully calling you a swine has not caused too much offence pal. Play Brian Moore 31 MARCH, 01:20 IST.

Ná bíodh do theanga faoi do chrios, anois gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A fool and his blocking allocation for the evening, easily parted, ey kido? Anyway, just wondering how I can appeal this little decision so I can get on with the job at hand. Of course I expect rebuttles to be posted to my User Page. It is frightfully rude when a user fails to do so. I don't have an email set-up in my account. Also you still have not stated the offended parties mar thoradh ar mo ainm. So if you could kindly state them, I would be most grateful. Otherwise, it would appear you are simply far too thin-skinned for your own good. Oíche mhaith, mo séán chara. Play Brian Moore, 01:49 IST, 31 March, 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.154.123 (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mongo

Hi Gaillimh, a while back you blocked Mongo in an incident involving me, Tyrenius and others. I've decided to take the case to RfC. If you'd like to comment on my draft statement of the dispute, please feel free. It can be found here user:Thomas Basboll/Sandbox. Best,--Thomas Basboll 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Belorussian wikipedia

Hello! Recently you asked if anyone knew more about the Belorussian wikipedia. Apparently User:GerardM knows more about the issue, and does have OTRS access (but oddly, not for Belorussian). Contact him for more information. --Kim Bruning 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kim! Thank you so much for letting me know! I've actually recently been in contact with Zscout370, who has filled me in about the situation on be-wiki (or old-bx-wiki, rather). He is a contributor to both en- and be-wiki, and he has been a great resource in helping me understand the situation. He also has OTRS access and has been working with Belarusian Wikipedians to make sense of what happened. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Blocking of Fenian swine

"Again, there is no debate. Please change your username." Mr Galway, can you tell me by what authority you have chosen to block this contributor? Please respond. And I would also like an explanation as to why you took it upon yourself to delete comments I made on another editors page.

That would appear to me to be a gross abuse of whatever admin powers you may have. (Sarah777 03:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

Hi there! First, please allow me to extend an apology for removing your comment on the talk page. It wasn't my intention; it was simply a miscue when pasting my response onto User talk:Fenian Swine. I didn't block the user by some sort of selective authority. As I've mentioned several times, the username was a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, do you not think you are being a bit high-handed? The policy would seem to support you but it also appears that you are the only one finds the name offensive. Surely as an Admin you should be refereeing rather than imposing your pov? There is a clear implication in the Wiki-rules you referenced (which I read) that a name is offensive only if someone decides to be offended by it. In your position as Executioner, you should not also be Judge and Jury. Surely? (Sarah777 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

The username is blatantly offensive, for reasons I've detailed on User talk:Fenian Swine. In addition, I am not imposing any biased point of view. Anyone can see that the name is offensive. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Mr Swine is being IRONIC, given his obvious Fenian sympathies. This case was argued out some time back (before my time here) and he was unblocked. You seem to be the only one offended since then. I am at a loss to understand why your are taking such an uncompromising line on this. (Sarah777 03:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

Ironic or not, the username is entirely inappropriate; it invites conflict and division in addition to disparaging a group of people. To say I am uncompromising is a gross misrepresentation of my actions. For more than a week, I offered to help the user change his username and was met with nothing but hostility and insults. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Fenian Swine is a long standing contributor, and blocking him without discussion at WP:RFCN is inappropriate. Please feel free to direct me to any discussion regarding endorsement of your block, otherwise I will raise this matter elsewhere. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank God for that, I thought I was the only one who saw you as being overly-harsh. Honestly though, it is in your best interest to unblock me, one person being offened by a name is not grounds for blocking, especially when the user who blocked me appears to make sweeping decissions without at least asking other administrators. Play Brian Moore 15:33 IST, 31 March 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.159.12 (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I think the post above is from User:Fenian Swine, who signs himself Play Brian Moore. You only come across the "offending" name if you click on his User-link. It takes some effort to be offended. Mr Gaillimh, to suggest that I am grossly misrepresenting your actions is a gross misrepresentation of my comments. I think we could perhaps keep the tone of this discussion calm yet frank. It is my view, that your actions in this matter constitute a misuse of Administrative power. Where should I take this matter for adjudication? Regards (Sarah777 09:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

As a result of your failure to reply to my message, I have started discussion at ANI over this matter. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I protest your statement that Fenian Swine tried to skew consensus in his RFCN page. I posted the following below on the top of the RFCN page:

Note to the closing administrator: The sockpuppet account in question used the same signature as the main account, identified the link between accounts on his user page, did not attempt to appear as a second individual, and used that account not for vandalism or creating an appearance of more votes. An inappropriate block was placed on the main account as the account should not have been blocked from contributing while the RFCN was in process. This block was removed. See Special:Contributions/Swenian_Fine for the alternate account's contribs.

It might be best for you to consider that your own comment seems to be misleading based upon the user's very straightforward representation that he was the same individual. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 22:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for dropping me a line, but I'm not sure how the comment of which you speak could be construed as misleading - in fact, it's actually very straightforward. The user has used a sockpuppet in an attempt to skew consensus and has done so blatantly, which is not only disrespecting the community, but also our policies. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your block, without a doubt, should have been preceded by discussion first. Perhaps a new account might have been worth blocking immediately, and an RFCN may have progressed later. But blocking a long-time contributor in good standing over username issues without any discussion amongst peers is downright absurd. The sockpuppet account was not to skew consensus, but to bring the matter to another user who investigated it (a perfectly valid use of sockpuppets). Ral315 » 04:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that you need to re-read the RFCU, as it clearly shows that the user has used a sockpuppet to participate in the process twice, both times advocating that his blatantly offensive user name be allowed gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A blocked user should have the right to participate in an RFCU on his own username. And you didn't address my main point- it was inappropriate to block an established user (since 2005, for pete's sakes), particularly where discussion has already taken place on his username. You'll note I haven't participated in the RFCU, and won't, because knowing nothing of the political and cultural situations there, I cannot judge whether his name is appropriate or not. I'm simply saying that the community should have decided, not you alone. Ral315 » 23:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA.--Anthony.bradbury 10:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

MFD joke

Hey! Why you deleted my joke on MFD? Wooyi 02:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that it might be best to get consensus for that first (yadda yadda yadda), since such things are done every year. If you personally don't like it, you could bring it up on the MFD talk page. Too much of such jokes is not healthy, but I think that the Wikipedia community expects a dose of silliness on the first of April. Gracias amigo, Gracenotes^T § 02:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There's already an established consensus that pages like Special:Upload are necessary. Being silly != being funny gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 03:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken... but can't we at least nominate one special page for deletion? And as you know, consensus can change, especially on April 1. And when closing debates, we just WP:IAR... this seems annual to me. Gracenotes^T § 03:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And jokes should show up on April Fool's Day too. Wooyi 03:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Gaillimh... say, why did you delete Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jimbo Wales? It didn't meet a criterion for speedy deletion. Gracenotes^T § 05:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it did gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

... yes? (I think I know what you're getting at, and if so, rather weak argument.) Gracenotes^T § 05:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes, can I help you with anything specific? If so, please state it. If not, cool beans, but it's best not to just leave me silly notes about your assumptions of my actions gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 05:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Admins who delete April Fool jokes would only make Wikipedia dull. Come on, BBC lies on April Fool too, so does The Arlingtonian, the paper I regularly write on. Wooyi 23:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a joke

The block by Arthur Rubin was no April Fool's joke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:DragonflySixtyseven

User:DragonflySistyseven had blocked me as an April Fool's joke and called me a jerk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Fyslee

I hadn't done anything wrong, and wasn't even warned. That was a misuse of admin powers and that admin should not only be blocked, but be stripped of their admin privileges. -- Fyslee/talk 22:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that some Admins would be better off like User:Hex - getting a hug from Jimbo! (Sarah777 23:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

User:Pogemahome

... has been blocked for WP:U. Ní maith liom an ainm úsáideora sin. Cad a cheapann tusa? - Alison^☺ 04:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ní thuigim cad úsáideora sin tá séis, ach tabharfaidh "glac do focal", abair. :) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"is fearr gaeilge briste ná béarla cliste" - LOL!! An-fíor ar fad! :) - Alison^☺ 21:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, cinnte! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Responded on my talk -M^ask 21:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And responded -M^ask 21:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

and again -M^ask 21:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! I have your user talk page on my watchlist now :) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Tahnk you I really appreciate it Jdchamp31 01:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ford Taurus

Thank you for helping me out on that issue Jdchamp31 01:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 01:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I have a hard time assuming good faith when someone makes a change that goes directly against the information in the article. When you get reverted once, doesn't it make sense to read the whole article to find out why? --Sable232 01:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely see your point, and the user was clearly mistaken, but it was a genuine attempt to help out Wikipedia, and it's never good to "scare off" new users with undeserved vandalism warnings gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 01:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Sable232 02:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RFCN

Actually, I was looking through the discussion from the time it was posted on AN, and deciding whether or not allowing further debate would be productive or not. After watching things progress, it was clear it would not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why you feel as though there's no consensus on the page itself. It's quite clear that the username violates Wikipedia policy, and since you're a new admin, it's expected that you'll make early mistakes. I just wish you didn't make this one, hehe. Cheers and good luck with your new buttons! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've been doing this about a month now. (Of course, that doesn't mean I won't make mistakes, those that have been doing it for years make mistakes.) And no, I don't determine consensus by vote-counting. However, in this case, there was a clear disagreement over whether the term is in fact a slur. If that argument had not been addressed, I would have closed as a requirement to change the name. I've encouraged the editor in question to change his name regardless, but there is no evident consensus here to force him to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, no, the username is most definitely a slur. I provided not only a detailed description, but also external references to support this notion. In fact, one only needs to check out Fenian and use one's own commonsense regarding the word "swine" to realise this, mate gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)