Haigh, Mangaire, agus tá fáilte romhat chuig an Vicipéid! Go raibh maith agat as do chuid dréachtaí a sheoladh isteach. Tá súil agam go mbainfidh tú taitneamh as d'am anseo! Tá sé éasca ailt nua a chruthú, agus téigh go dtí an Halla Baile chun caint leis na Vicipéideoirí eile (más mian leat é sin a dhéanamh), nó téigh go dtí an Lárionad Comhphobail chun breathnú ar na heachtraí Vicipéide is déanaí.

Más é do thoil é, sínigh do chuid theachtaireachtaí ar leathanaigh phlé le ceithre thilde a chlóscríobh (~~~~); ciallaíonn sé sinn go hionsáfar d'ainm úsáideora agus an dáta go huathoibríoch. Má tá cabhair ag teastail uait, féach ar Vicipéid:Cabhair, nó cuir ceist dom ar mo leathanach phlé. Uair amháin eile, fáilte romhat! --AllieBot 05:08, 19 Bealtaine 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Éire cuir in eagar

Please stop moving this page unilaterally after some self-imposed deadline. As you can clearly see from the talk page this has some up before, is potentially controversial, and so any move would require discussion and a measure of agreement amongst editors. Statements like "I'll wait 24 hours for a counter argument, else I'm moving" are not in the spirit of WP:CON. Guliolopez 21:23, 19 Lúnasa 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GLopez, it is my belief that this is an entirely unfair message. The page was moved by me about a week ago to be approximate I believe, with an explanatory message being left by me on the Plé. The other name was put in place again by the user Footyfanatic, with no explanation or reason given other than saying something about sticking to vicí an Bhéarla that you yourself declared a couple of days ago to be improper. Thus the day before yesterday, with nobody whatsoever having bothered to reply to me on the Plé and nobody whatsoever having bothered to give an actual reason to oppose my actions, I wrote a message to say that as this was the case I would put back the oileán if I found a continuing absence of anybody prepared to engage with me on this issue by the following day. When the next day still I saw no reply or explanation after the elapse of approximately one week since I first made the proposals, I followed the course of action I had laid out on the Plé.

The result was this message of yours of 21:23, 19 Lúnasa 2009, which appeared to me abrupt and unfair and to misrepresent my actions. If it is the case that you are in opposition to my proposals it is my suggestion that you give reasons why you disagree with them and why they are a bad idea or against the rules of the Vicipéid, rather than send me unfair messages that misrepresent my actions. My thanks. Mangaire 18:23, 20 Lúnasa 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Mangaire for explaining your actions. However, I'm with Guliolopez - if a change is possibly contraversial, it should be discussed until there is some kind of consensus. If you feel that your proposal is not generating adequate discussion, then escalate it to the Riarthóirí. If we really want to talk about being abrupt and unfair, the only example that I have seen lately is your comment on the Seán Óg de Paor article "CABHRÓIDH MÉ LEAT A SHEÁIN. IS IOMAíí FADHB ATÁ DEISITHE AGAM. DáLA AN SCÉIL, AN DTUIGEANN TÚ AN TUISEAL GINIDEACH?". The Vicipéid is a community, in which respect for the genuine efforts of others is the key, so please try to keep these kind of comments to yourself. Cheers. --Antóin 18:45, 20 Lúnasa 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A chara, I thank you for the message, but in truth if you read the Plé I had already fully explained my actions on there prior to making the actions in question, just the explanations were it seems ignored and unanswered!

But is it indeed the case that you don't think it's unfair that when after a week nobody has answered my attempts to initiate discussion on the page or given any reasons to oppose my suggestion and I accordingly go ahead with my proposals I get a message which seems to accuse me of wrongdoing implying that I made unilateral improper changes after only allowing 24 hours for counter-arguments? Possibly this was not in truth GLopez's intent but that's the impression I get when I read it.

Maidir le "cabhróidh mé leat", cathain a dúirt mé na rudaí sin ar an alt Seán Óg de Paor? D'fhéach mé ar an alt faoi Sheán Óg de Paor agus ní fheicim é.

I thank you for the tip on "escalating it to the Riarthóirí" if this is indeed a rule on Vicipéid when nobody answers your attempts to initiate discussions on a Plé page after a week. What might be the usual procedure for this?

It is not my intention to argue that my actions have been always gan locht but it seems to me that others are not entirely blameless and certainly may have caused misunderstanding through apparently not reading things carefully enough. And certainly I cannot in conscience agree that GLopez's message was entirely fair in what it, perhaps unintentionally, seemed to me to imply as explained above in this message. Perhaps you would like to make a fuller examination of what I actually did and what it seemed to me when I read the message I was accused of doing? I feel there has been some misunderstanding in this matter and must protest at the idea that it was fair to accuse me of the things which I explained the message perhaps unintentionally appeared to imply. After the course of action I followed to say "Please stop moving this page unilaterally after some self-imposed deadline." and "Statements like "I'll wait 24 hours for a counter argument, else I'm moving" are not in the spirit of WP:CON." seems unjust as it is certainly not an accurate description of my actions. Again, I must feel that GLopez perhaps did not fully understand the course of events. I would be more satisfied if he were to furnish some explanation of why he represented my actions in this somewhat misleading way.Mangaire 19:33, 20 Lúnasa 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake, the article I was referring to was that on Seán de Paor, see your comments there in the comment history. --Antóin 07:27, 21 Lúnasa 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tuigim. I perceive nothing wrong with the first two sentences but must admit that in truth the "an dtuigeann tú an tuiseal ginideach" was perhaps ruder and more abrupt than I would have intended. My apologies if this caused undue offence to any úsáídeoir. In any case it's a side issue not truly relevant to the main discussionn. Mangaire 09:53, 21 Lúnasa 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leithscéal cuir in eagar

Firstly I do need to apologise. My first message in this thread was a little unfair and abrupt. As I hinted at in my message on Plé:Éire because of the lack of sigs, and Footyfanatic's revert, I somehow thought there was an ongoing discussion in play that your actions weren#t taking account of. I was mistaken and apologise. However, though my note of censure was misplaced, I still think that WP:CON requires discussion/debate before controversial moves. And so, while it's not a reasonable excuse, time pressures meant I didn't take the time I should have to investigate the history before posting the above. And for that I apologise.

Now. That said, I still think the move was premature. I understand your comment about "nobody bothered to respond, therefore I just went ahead". However - given that there aren't as many editors here as (say) on the EN project - we probably need to be a bit more proactive in seeking CON. (IE: Talk pages aren't read as frequently as they might be, and so placing a message that says "I'll move unless I see any objection in X hours/days" doesn't really meet the WP:CON mandate.) Had I done things properly, this is what my message should have said. And it should have said it in a more constructive manner. Guliolopez 08:55, 21 Lúnasa 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My thanks for explaining your actions. Ní bhíonn saoi gan locht, but he who can admit an error is to be admired. Thanks also for drawing my attention to the message you had placed already at Plé:Éíre. (Incidentally, I must in turn furnish an apology for the lack of signature there which appears not to have been without a role in this unnecessary misunderstanding). It satisfies me to have been provided with this explanation of how the misrepresentation of my actions came about and to have been given an actual reason why someone might wish to follow a course other than the proposal. If we have indeed cleared up the confusion and misunderstanding then perhaps we may move ahead free of it. Gura míle. Mangaire 09:53, 21 Lúnasa 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]