User talk:Sarah777/Archive 13

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WP:AE

Your comments are requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Enough_is_enough.--Tznkai (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood my request.:

Specified diffs of bad conduct. I don't care about motivations, our supposed POV, and I certainly am not interested in accusations of cabalism or meat/sockpuppetry, or admin repression of your rights. I'm looking for edit warring, genuine personal attacks, confirmed sockpuppets and similar bad conduct.
I want a short consise statement why you should not be put under sanction yourself.

Reply at your earliest convenience please.--Tznkai (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've just checked in and see you've moved straight from your (rather curt and rude) demand for a "concise statement" to implement some unspecified sanctions. More or less that sort of Admin behaviour I was referring to really.

You asked for comments, without any further information, so I didn't "misunderstand" you, as there was nothing to misunderstand. I seems that comment, that you asked for, is then used to impose sanctions without any time to reply, concisely or otherwise.

"I'm looking for edit warring, genuine personal attacks, confirmed sockpuppets and similar bad conduct." Are you? Pity you didn't say so then. Sarah777 (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Drink

File:Red Bull 250mL Can.jpg

Have a couple of these :)

Unidentified man in green firing turret (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Say "hi" to The Italian Vandal :/ - Alison ^❤ 06:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The Italian Vandal? Giano?? I've been away for a day and see what they are doing now? Ever ask yourself Ali how you can remain part of a system that dispences should arbitrary "justice"? Sarah777 (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea what you're referring to. "The Italian Vandal" is a well-known vandal (also known as JtV) and I've just blocked him. Arbitrary "justice" in action :) - Alison ^❤ 09:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ali; I wasn't referring to the vandal (never heard of him before); I was referring to this astonishing "sanction" I see has been imposed for apparently not replying quickly enough to a rude demand. Sarah777 (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think removal of blatant Admin abuse could be regarded as "wheel-warring"; so maybe this time yourself or Fozzie might just remove this "sanction", whatever it is? Sarah777 (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so and suggest you take it up with the admin involved, or comment over at WP:AE and see how it goes - Alison ^❤ 09:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the behaviour of "the Admin involved" (you can read it right above this for yourself ↑↑↑) I don't think there is any point taking it back to him. Do you? Are you saying you see what he did as acceptable? You endorse it by your inaction? Sarah777 (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't "endorse it by [my] inaction" but I'm not going to get involved right now. When you're involved, that's a no-win situation so my suggestion is that you approach him directly and ask him for clarification. Quite a number of other editors on all 'sides' got hit with the same sanctions (Dunc, TU, Thunderer, Domer, etc) - Alison ^❤ 09:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

They were involved in edit-warring including 3RR; I wasn't. And it is clear from the context that my statement that he asked for was the real trigger in my case; not any "edit-warring". Sarah777 (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to be mentoring me since the last Fozzie block? Somebody was. But a bit like the imaginary Guardian Angel on my shoulder I ain't never seen him/her around in times of trouble :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Same question to Fozzie; I know he's watching. Sarah777 (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Probation notice

Due to your edit warring on Ireland related articles, I have placed you on the probationary terms available to administrators under the The Troubles. This probation self expires in one months from this time, or until lifted by administrator or community discretion.--Tznkai (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And I'm supposed to guess what the terms are, am I? Or better don't tell me so I can get banned for ignoring them? And where was this "edit warring" done, am I permitted to inquire? Sarah777 (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if this is not relevant - feel free to dump it if you like. And perhaps I've missed something in the analysis, but it seems a strange decision. Actually, scratch that - it looks like a mistake has been made. Here's your September summary...

User: Sarah777
**September 2008 - Total Edits: 677**
User Space	Article Space	Wikipedia
Talk: 135 Unique Pages: 17	Article: 569 Talk: 108 Unique Articles: 230 Troubles Related: 5	Article: 43 Template: 2 Unique Articles: 10
User Talk list User talk:Alison User talk:Ardfern User talk:Bastun User talk:BrownHairedGirl User talk:Domer48 User talk:HighKing User talk:Lightmouse User talk:Limbo-Messiah User talk:Matt Lewis User talk:Mrchris User talk:Ras52 User talk:Rockpocket User talk:Sarah777 User talk:SirFozzie User talk:ThatsGrand User talk:Vintagekits User talk:Waggers	Article list Abbeyleix Adare Manor Athlone Atlantic Corridor Balally Ballinglass Incident Ballinrobe Ballybay Ballyboden St. Enda's Ballyshannon Battle of the Boyne Belturbet Blackrock College Blathmac mac Maele Cobo Bull Island Camolin, County Wexford Castlecomer Castlemartin House and Estate Castlerea Central Hotel Fire, Bundoran Clonmacnoise Colman of Lindisfarne Congalach mac Conaing Cootehill County Carlow County Kilkenny County Leitrim County Westmeath Crosshaven Curracloe Dingle Dollymount Domnall mac Aedo Donaghmede Dromahane Dromiskin Drumcondra, Dublin Drumlish Drumshanbo Dualla, County Tipperary Dublin Dublin statues and their nicknames Duleek Dunboyne Duncannon Duncormick Dundalk Dundrum, County Tipperary Dundrum, Dublin Dunfanaghy Dungarvan Dungloe Dungourney Dunlavin Dunleer Dunmanway Dunmore East Dunmore, County Galway Dunshaughlin Durrow Abbey Durrow, County Laois Durrow, County Offaly Durrus Dun Laoghaire Dunchad Muirisci Dunchad mac Murchado Dungal Eilni mac Scandail Easky Economy of the Republic of Ireland Enfield (County Meath) railway station Forgney Gabhra Galbally, County Limerick Galmoy Galway Garrienderk Garryspillane Geesala Geevagh Glandore Glangevlin Glanmire Glasnevin Glassan Glenageary Glenealy, County Wicklow Glengarriff Glenties Glinsk Glounthaune Goatstown Golden, County Tipperary Goleen Goresbridge Gorey Gormanston, County Meath Gort Gortnahoo Gorvagh Gougane Barra Gowran Graiguenamanagh Granard Grange, County Sligo Grangecon Greencastle, County Donegal Greystones Gweedore Hacketstown Halfway, County Cork Halloween Harold's Cross Headford Hill of Tara Hollyford Hollyfort Hollymount Hollywood, County Wicklow Holycross Horse and Jockey Hospital, County Limerick Howth Ibrahim Mousawi Irish Rebellion of 1641 Irish Sea Jamestown, County Leitrim Jenkinstown Park Jenkinstown, County Louth Johnstown Bridge Johnstown, County Kildare Johnstown, County Kilkenny Johnstown, Dublin Julianstown Keadue Keshcarrigan Kilcullen Kilkenny Killybegs Kinnegad Knock, County Mayo Knockvicar Lacken, County Wicklow Leap, County Cork Lismore, County Waterford List of census towns in the Republic of Ireland List of cities, boroughs and towns in the Republic of Ireland List of mountains in Ireland List of towns and villages in the Republic of Ireland List of towns in the Republic of Ireland by population Longwood, County Meath Louisburgh, County Mayo Lucan, County Dublin M50 motorway (Ireland) M6 motorway (Ireland) M7 motorway M7 motorway (Ireland) M8 motorway (Ireland) M9 motorway (Ireland) Malahide Manhattan Project Manorhamilton Milford, County Cork Milford, County Donegal Milltownpass Mountjoy Square Muff, County Donegal Muine Bheag Muinebeag N1 road (Ireland) N10 road (Ireland) N11 road (Ireland) N15 road (Ireland) N17 road (Ireland) N18 road (Ireland) N20 road (Ireland) N25 road (Ireland) N6 road (Ireland) N72 road (Ireland) Newtownmountkennedy Northern Ireland Nuclear Suppliers Group Oliver Goldsmith Pallaskenry Palmerstown Partry Patrickswell Paulstown Pettigo Pontoon, County Mayo Portarlington, County Laois Portlaoise Portlaw Portmagee Portmarnock Portroe Prosperous, County Kildare R284 road R285 road R348 road R359 road R392 road R445 road R730 road R747 road Rahara Rathdowney Rathmichael Regional road Republic of Ireland River Boyle Rivers of Ireland Roads in Ireland Rogallach mac Uatach Rolestown Roscrea Shankill, Dublin St Stephen's Green Termon The Emergency (Ireland) The Harrow, County Wexford Theobald Wolfe Tone Timahoe Tulsk UEFA Cup Ulster Special Constabulary Wind gap (disambiguation) Windgap Windgap, County Kilkenny Windgap, Kilkenny Woodlawn railway station Woodlawn, County Galway	Article list Template:Dublin transport Template:NPR IRL WP talk:British Isles Terminology task force WP talk:MOS (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles WP talk:WikiProject Ireland Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Wikipedia:MOS (Ireland-related articles)/Ireland disambiguation task force Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force

Your troubles related edits are:

User: Sarah777
**Troubles Related Edits**
Edit	Note
Battle of the Boyne 09.57, 21 September 2008;Battle of the Boyne; (Undid revision 239967919 by Lightbot)	Not edit warring Reverting a bot that was incorrectly removing dates
Irish Rebellion of 1641 20.09, 18 September 2008;Irish Rebellion of 1641; (Undid revision 239312200 by 86.42.223.244)	Not edit warring Reverted an anon IP address single word
Northern Ireland 23.02, 4 September 2008;Northern Ireland; (->Citizenship and identity:tweak)	Not edit warring Simple edit, not contested - tweak of anon IP edit
Northern Ireland 23:19, 25 September 2008 Setanta747 23:46, 25 September 2008 Sarah777 (Undid unreferenced) 23:50, 25 September 2008 Sarah777 (Other: add) 11:25, 26 September 2008 Traditional unionist (Undid revision 241019361 by Sarah777 (talk) unreferenced) 11:45, 26 September 2008 Setanta747 (undid: last editor didn't "add" as stated, but replaced; references added) 17:05, 26 September 2008 Sarah777 (Other: rem unreferenced "name"; what happened to the Haughey one?)	Not edit warring Simple civil normal edit patterns resulting in a reference being provided
Republic of Ireland 08.39, 21 September 2008;Republic of Ireland; (Undid revision 239960105 by 86.40.103.142 (talk))	Not edit warring Simple vandal revert of anon IP edit
Theobald Wolfe Tone 22.57, 4 September 2008;Theobald Wolfe Tone; (Undid revision 236250358 by 78.144.54.131 (talk))	Not edit warring Simple vandal revert of anon IP edit
Ulster Special Constabulary 23.26, 20 September 2008;Ulster Special Constabulary; (undo edit warring)	Not edit warring One single edit on an article that admittedly was being heavily edit-warred at the time. But one edit hardly constitutes edit-warring...

Since comments on Talk pages are not relevant to edit-warring, I have not analysed these. But based on your article edits, it's obvious that you rarely edit on "Troubles" related pages, and I fail to see how you've been placed under probation for potentially making one edit in the middle of an edit-war. It is very unfair. --HighKing (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting this together HighKing, and allow me to disagree with you on two points. First, the Ulster Special Constabulary edit showed me that both Sarah777 and Traditional unionist have exceptionally poor judgment on how to deal with edit warring. You do not, ever respond to an edit war by reverting it. That makes you a participant. Second, the second instance of Northern Ireland does not show "civil normal edit patterns" but back and forth reversions and edit warring. Which is a bad idea in general, but an outright disruptive idea amongst the backdrop of the existing general sanctions and history of edit warring.

In addition, and I have no intention of digging through every case of this, (but I will find a few choice examples if needed)Sarah has shown extreme hostility, incivility and suspicion in her talk page comments, showing a troubling mindset. She found it necessary and proper to further a content dispute on WP:AE, has shown an inability to act civilly and assume good faith (like here for example), and has otherwise shown a factionalist mentality where Wikipedia is a battleground. "Small" edit wars would not be a problem if it wasn't for a displayed attitude that suggests that the editor A. believes it was justified and B. would be willing to do it again.

Now, Sarah has a one month probation, and by the time we're done arguing about this, it will have been served. I am cognizant of the relative level of insanity here but what you have to understand that all players were past the line.--Tznkai (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tznaki, let's be crystal clear on this. You placed Sarah777 on probation due to edit-warring, as per the reason you gave. Not incivility. Not hostility. Or are you now saying that you placed her on probation for other reasons also? --HighKing (talk) 17:<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John254/Addtabs/monobook.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I remembered to use the key word, but Sarah is under probation due to disruptive edit warring. Since all remedies are preventive, I am using past behavior as a predictor for future behavior. Whatever you want to narrowly define as edit warring, everything I brought up constitutes disruption, and disruption related to the editing of articles. So she is being put on probation for edit warring as seen both in the actual reversions back and forth, and the related behaviors. If requested, I can amend to "generalized disruptive behavior."--Tznkai (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tznaki, there's a big different between "disruptive edit warring" and "generalized disruptive behavior". On the subject of "disruptive edit warring" - the reason given for placing her on probation - I believe the analysis very clearly shows that Sarah777 did not engage in *any* edit warring. I disagree with the assertion that a single revert constitutes engaging in edit warring. An edit war is defined as An edit war occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert each other's edits to a page or subject area. Very clearly, Sarah777 did not repeatedly do anything.

I respectfully ask that you re-examine your assertion that Sarah777 engaged in edit-warring. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

See my response to the Northern Ireland edits. I will reexamine the issue after I have responded to the other editors sanctioned.--Tznkai (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Good bit of work HighKing but it seems I to was placed on probation for edit warring and when I asked for diffs I was given a diff showing me when I was far from civil to another editor completly in the wrong and with no excuse so it does seem that the admin involved is clutching at straws. And I was delighted to see this from Alison as this is an admin I have had a lot of dealings with over the years yet I still get probation. Also it seems that Tznkai is using consensus by silence to back up his actions. BigDunc^Talk 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer Sarah's earlier question, the terms of the probation are as follows:

Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert.

Note that it's specifically reverts, not other edits. So while we can argue whether the probation is justified or not (I haven't looked at Sarah's recent history so can't comment on that) the terms of the probation itself are really no big deal, and probably not worth kicking up a fuss about. Waggers (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a big deal Waggers it is being used as a punishment for actions that have not been commited. If they are no big deal then why is wiki policy not changed so that it applies to all editors? BigDunc^Talk 18:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which policy you're referring to there. Waggers (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That editors are limited to one revert per article per week. BigDunc^Talk 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. Edit warring is never a good thing, and there are a number of editors who support a WP:1RR policy instead of a WP:3RR one. The leniency in WP:3RR is there to make sure we don't WP:BITE etc., but for seasoned editors (and those who have been investigated in an ArbCom case and sanctions placed on them) I agree, 1RR does seem more sensible. If you propose it, I'll support you. Waggers (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well Waggers, there isn't a 1RR rule for seasoned editors, is there? And it would be a margin call to claim there was even a single 1 warring edit by me. I'd argue not. Either way this probation is a dud; and you say, 'maybe, but no big deal'. Except that this will form part for the "evidence" for the next totally unjustified block the next time some Admin gets irritated with me or my views. Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it's wrong for any restriction, no matter how small, to be applied without good reason. Having looked through your recent edit history, I can't see any reason for this probation at all. I've asked the admin in question to lift it. As you've seen, some of Tznkai's other recent decisions have also been called into question, as has his position as an administrator. Waggers (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Sarah. Tznkai has now given a produced a full report, complete with diffs, on his reasoning for your probation here. It's pretty comprehensive, and my brief search through your recent edits didn't go as far back as some of the diffs he's produced (they're still recent, but not within the last few days, which is all I looked at). It looks like his argument is well thought out and he's put a good case together; I'm now happy that he's produced an adequate justification so I'm not going to dispute his judgement any further. As ever, you can of course seek further input at WP:AN etc. but my advice is to take it on the chin. As I said before, compared to a block, this is hardly anything anyway. Waggers (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the term "Harassing Alison" a little strong in this context. More like "pestering", really. No way could I describe her as being "harassing" - Alison ^❤ 21:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ali! I'm simply too blunt to say that I'm not cheesed off with your....eh....restraint/indifference vis a vis my attackers - but no way am I harrassing you!! Sarah777 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey!! I must be losing it - I can't find anyone accusing me of harassing you Ali - tell me who did and I'll deal with him :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's still here as one of the links. Go beat him up for me :) In seriousness, I know you're cheesed off with me right now. I'm a bit inattentive on WP right now for a whole number of reasons, some RL. I think it's good ol' burnout. I'll try taking a look over this whole sanctions thing over the weekend here and see if I can make sense of what's going on there. But I just want to register my immediate disagreement over the "harassment" word; that's grossly overstating things. I've known you long enough on here now (years!!) to know what you're like :) - Alison ^❤ 23:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ali - You also know I can't stay mad at you for long! So it's my (current) least favourite Admin made the charge. Heck, maybe I'll award him/it a barnstar for...something unpleasant....Sarah777 (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of adding to my reputation Wagggers, that is pure B***s. Not one single one of his "reasoning" stands up; he is in dispute with me, so what would you expect? He admits that his "sanction" was bull based on the reasons he gave and then waffles on and on about the fact that, basically, he doesn't like my opinions. He should resign or be fired. What about his own edit warring btw? The silence of yourself and the rest of the "Admin Community" is deafening on this? Sarah777 (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed his contributions, but if you think he's abusing the admin tools that really should be reported to WP:AN. Waggers (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow!

Thanks HK! How did you manage that?! Reading the "terms of probation" (which the Admin didn't have the simple good manners to explain) - the irony is that had I been under such strictures the previous month it would have made almost no difference! The arbitrary nature of this imposition is mind-boggling though. It seems I can now be repeatedly sanctioned for the same, much earlier "offences". No diffs; no rationale.

Example: Tznkai - an outright disruptive idea amongst the backdrop of the existing general sanctions and history of edit warring. What history of edit warring? Diffs please.
Example: T - Sarah is under probation due to disruptive edit warring. Incorrect, Sarah is not under probation due to disruptive edit warring.
Example: T - She found it necessary and proper to further a content dispute on WP:AE - She was asked by Tznkai to comment.
Example: T - I am cognizant of the relative level of insanity here but what you have to understand that all players were past the line Incorrect. I wasn't even near any line; nevermind past it.
Now I don't really blame T for behaving as it does; the complicity by silence of Admins much more familiar with the issues and history here is the real disgrace, and facilitates this quality of behaviour.
T has admitted above that the grounds for the probation (as stated) were wrong but then goes on to basically "yeah but I feel she's guilty of something". And we have the cumulative justice principle - each bad block is subsequently used as part justification for the next one. Kafka was talking about Wiki it seems! Sarah777 (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How did I manage it? I stalk your edits of course... No - seriously. Actually, I'm working on a stealth-mode wikipeda related thingy, so I have a collection of scripts, analysis ... and stuff. --HighKing (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

PS; HighKing, I see you class the article about Ireland as a "troubles related article"!! Don't be giving them ideas ;) Sarah777 (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually looking at the shifting "justifications" and the talk of "preemption" by this Admin it all reminds me a bit of the Bush regimes justifications for invading Iraq; It was to implement UN sanctions (but the UN doesn't support that)...eh, ok...It was to stop the imminent development of WMD, (but there were no WMDs)....oops, no, it was to remove AlQaeda from Iraq (but they didn't exist before the invasion)...eh, ok, it was to get rid of Saddam and save the people of Iraq (but millions were killed and made refugees and the place was destroyed).... yeah, ok, but that might have happened anyway, who knows - look don't nitpick or else; the damn A-rabs deserved it, OK? Sarah777 (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

But, we all know that Sarah has shown extreme hostility, incivility and suspicion in her talk page comments, showing a troubling mindset. - that is the REAL reason for the constant attacks. IMHO. Sarah777 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The history of edit warring was on the aritcle itself, and you injected yourself into the AE thread before I asked you to comment on it. We can finagle over the definition of edit warring as much as you like, but you are certainly disruptive. I have no interest in semantic arguments at this point: this isn't a court of law, this isn't an issue of justice, and we're not lawyers. You were disruptive, you were warring, you were editing.--Tznkai (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was not. You are wrong. Frankly I don't want to finagle over anything with you. I may wish to discuss your beheaviour in appropriate places. Please don't feel the need to post here on my page ever again; we are in dispute. Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And LOL! "You were disruptive, you were warring, you were editing". As I wasn't doing either of the first two, the real problem in your eyes, as I suspected, was the third.Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And not trying to throw petrol on the fire, but looking at Tznkai's editting on Intelligent design makes me think that perhaps there's double standards being applied here.... If *you* can get put on probation for one revert .... --HighKing (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

O my! That does rather look like edit warring by our Admin, doesn't it? I was going to make a comment on the name of the article he was editing but our Wikipedian friends sometimes seem to have the humour gene missing from their design. Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I thought I have no interest in semantic arguments at this point was pretty funny. 86.44.28.60 (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - and we can now see why. Sarah777 (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Heya (update on AE)

I've complied with your request on AE, see what you think. SirFozzie (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Fozzie, I think you are on to something useful here - see my response at AE. I'm still not impressed by either Tznkai or the fact that his completely indefensible "probation" stays in place. Or that his edit-warring on an article with a history as contentious as "The Troubles" remains unsanctioned. All too cosy really Foz. Just too cosy. Sarah777 (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

sighs* Sarah, come on, that's basically boilerplate to stop everyone who goes "Hey! I'm off 1 Revert probation, that means I get three reverts no matter what".. not that I think you'd do it. :) SirFozzie (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fozzie, check my history. As I just said (somewhere...Rock's page?) in 27k edits there is a single accidental 3RR that I'm aware of. Why the hell would I start now?!! Be a good boy and block Tznkai for a few years. Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Troubles

Is all of the above and the rest flying around various pages what they mean by the troubles? We could start a seperate article on it. :) Jack forbes (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Jack! Maybe you can help - there was a redlink to an Isaac Jackson in the Timahoe stub and I googled him looking for info and came across what looks like a biography Wiki, "Wikia". I linked it like I just did here and then I wondered...what is the MOS for this sort of link? Sarah777 (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You would have to ask someone with more knowledge than I Sarah, I've never been one for reading up on rules and regulations. In real life I was usually told I was wrong after the event. :) Jack forbes (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So RL mimics Wiki, eh? Sarah777 (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Or wiki mimics real life, I dont say go around breaking the rules, challenging them is another matter. Of course, if you break the rules in real life you won't get a ban, you'll be taken away in a paddywagon. Not that I've ever been in one. Honest! Jack forbes (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on being un-sanctioned. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for your support G'Day....much appreciated. Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Should never have been sanctioned in the first place... --HighKing (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Óglaigh na hÉireann

The weather's being nice lately, plenty of sunshine t'be sure. Do you play bass yeself? Barbed Choir (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I play whatever God sends me :) Sarah777 (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Windgap

Sarah – just thought I'd explain my reversion at Windgap, Kilkenny. I moved the content there from Windgap a little while ago, because of the liklihood of confusion with other places called Windgap or Wind Gap, and also with the geographical feature itself. If someone was looking for information on one of those other meanings, they would be confused if taken to the Irish village (lovely as I'm sure it is). On the other hand, with the current arrangement (Windgap redirecting to Wind gap (disambiguation)), everyone can see clearly what the choices are and decide which they really want. It also puts all the several Wind(_)gap places on an equal and fair footing, which is the usual WP arrangement. Having said all that, I'm not sure now whether the geographical feature is best called Wind gap as now, or (by the same argument as for the village), something like Wind gap (geographical feature). What do you think? Richard New Forest (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the changes is that I don't agree with dabbing when the names are not the same. There is no other article called "Windgap" and I think there is a clear difference between the name and the geographical thing. Other places called Windgap (but not Wind Gap) need some sort of dab and in the absence of a prime location the first to have an article is valid if there are very few examples. Sarah777 (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes in fact there is another place called "Windgap": Windgap (Pittsburgh) – enough for a dab by itself. I do agree that there's no point in dabbing when the names are sufficiently different to avoid confusion – however, "Wind Gap" and "Windgap" are so extremely similar that they are bound to get confused, and so I can't really see how we can avoid a dab in this case. We can't expect people to know in advance which of these uses are one word and which are two – for example they might well want the Irish village and type "Wind Gap", or want the Pennsylvanian borough and type "Windgap". (To be honest, I'm already having trouble remembering which way round they are...)

Thinking further about the name of the geographical feature, I don't think we can disambiguate that solely by capitalisation, so I've changed its title as above.

I saw you'd changed Windgap, Kilkenny to Windgap, County Kilkenny – that looks sensible, and is what I'd have done myself if I'd been less ignorant of Irish county naming. I've changed the dab to match. Richard New Forest (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the "X, County Y" is the standard format. Sarah777 (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi sarah, you removed the history section from Windgap article diff, why and what hoax; thanks Mrchris (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooops - I assumed it was a hoax - it isn't? Really need inline refs for stuff like that - the reference linked back to the article so I assumed it was a hoax. Apologies if I'm wrong. Sarah777 (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Above discussion copied to Talk:Windgap, County Kilkenny Richard New Forest (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New Idea for route numbers

I did this as a trial, looking at how people did the maps of the metro systems, I did a "R" a "1" and an "7 end"

+ + +

=

It will save allot of work and it then can be used for L numbers

i dunno what do you think Limbo-Messiah (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm no font expert but it looks fine to me. Who's going to be the first with an article about an "L" road?! Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland Taskforce

Ahh Sarah, I thought you were gonna hold off on the Wikipedia = Anglo PoV stuff? I don't wanna see ya getting sanctioned. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sanctioned for what G'Day? The 'verdict' was a travesty, in my respectful opinion. Are they going to sanction me for questioning them? If so, I'd hope that Wiki is something you'd want no part in. Sarah777 (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just giving ya some advice, that's all. Cheers. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

David G

That block seems to be lifted now; was it some sort of 'range block'? Sarah777 (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

L Roads

Thought I might rise to the challenge and write about an L road, L3205

It's difficult to get info on these roads are they listed anywhere other than signposts or have they appeared on the latest editions of maps? Rigger30 (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - I can't even figure the system of numbering they are based on. Anyone out there know?? They appear in all manner of Local Authority documentation. Sarah777 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rigger! You can't call a roads article L3205 road, County Tipperary, Ireland! What if it crossed a few counties? (Can they do that?). I've moved it to a better place :) Sarah777 (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I accept your point that a road could cross county boundaries. However that particular road doesn't and if it did I would have chosen a title which reflected that fact! I called it that because of the possibility that a road was called something similar somewhere else in the world. (That said I don't have a problem with it being moved). I feel it might be an idea to start an article listing L roads in each administrative county with basic info on the R and N roads they link to. I know that recently in parts of North Tipperary signs have appeared at the ends of roads giving their numbers. On that point it seems that roads which link to other roads be they R roads or N roads or indeed other L roads seem to have four digit numbers preceeded by an L. Less important roads and the ones I've noticed so far are all cul-de-sac rural laneways have five digit numbers preceeded by an L. It appears that the number is higher depending what part of the country you are in as it seems that L3xxx seem to be predominantly in North Tipperary.

Rigger30 (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The readings of Ms Boleyn

Jeanne, just read your page - wow! You have a very comprehensive list; I like your musical list and you show excellent taste in putting Liam Neeson up there:) Of your Top Ten books I've read only three but I can find no fault in the list. Guess which three? - and remember I always judge a book by the cover...Sarah777 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that you have read Trinity, The Trial, and Ceremony of The Innocent. If you have not read the latter, I strongly recommend it-powerful stuff and sad.--jeanne (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for complimenting my musical taste and as for Liam Neeson, I couldn't leave him out. He's not only georgeous but he's an excellent actor. Very versatile like De Niro.--jeanne (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Two out of three ain't bad! (Wilkie Collins rather than Ceremony of The Innocent) - and you even part-guessed that. I'd reckon there are substantial grounds for a good donnybrook in your list of "Things I support and oppose" though. En guard! Sarah777 (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wilkie Collins is brilliant. The Moonstone is also a favourite of mine. Woman In White was far more gothic, which is why I included that on my list. I believe it's one of the first gothics written. As to my list of Things I Support and oppose, uh-oh, I believe I've fallen into hot water. I can probably presume without too great a hardship on my part that you dont approve of McCain, the death penalty, the abolishion of EU.--jeanne (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The monarchy I think you do support deep down LOL--jeanne (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct, correct, correct and...wrong! Sarah777 (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I was only joking. I am certain, however, that my stance on feminism does meet with your approval. I am sure you do not take male chauvinism or aggression lightly.--jeanne (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd not take any aggression directed at me lightly Jeanne! I was amazed to discover that many female Wikipedians use male handles because they find themselves less targeted; including at least one long-standing senior Admin (who now posts under her own name). I am amused to be then constantly threatened for alleged "incivility" and "agressivness" and so forth and so forth and so forth. It's hard to win, eh?! Sarah777 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to get on your bad side, I'll admit. One thing at Wikipedia I have learned is that if you accuse someone of sexism they immediatly throw in the bit about "usernames being sans gender". Come on now, Jeanne is clearly the feminine form of Jean, what's more, one can see in my photos that I am FEMALE. So when they deny sexism, their genderless usernames dog definitely won't bark! Another thing, people try to sneer at my belief in astrology in order to gain the upper hand and make me feel stupid. If beleiving in astrology makes me stupid, then I'm in good company (Ptolemy, Isaac Newton, Napoleon, Jung, Churchill, Catherine de Medici, Elizabeth I). I wonder if these editors who deride astrology realise that astrology is the mother of astronomy? Then there is the fact that I'm a Tarot reader- do they have a hooley with that one!!!--jeanne (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

POV alert!

To anyone interested there is a move afoot to move "Counties of Ireland" to "Counties of RoI" here. It seems that making changes that would come under the Arbcom rulings are now being carroied out without any notification of the usually interested parties. Sarah777 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a similiar move afoot to move Flag of RoI to Flag of Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple hits changing Ireland to ROI (lists etc.) I think I have tracked down and reversed most of them. --Snowded TALK 14:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually Sarah, IMO all related article should be at or moved to RoI. At least until (if) Republic of Ireland is moved. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Or alternatively, Republic of Ireland should be moved to Ireland until (if) all related articles move to Republic of Ireland. Just a quick comment, I'm off again. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

!Vote

See WP:!VOTE, point 12. Rockpocket 16:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. But so long as the Wiki-Gods describe a 6-4 majority as "consensus" then, logically, a !vote is a vote. Elementary my dear !Watson. Sarah777 (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It rather depends on what the !voters said when they !voted. 6 well reasoned responses alongside 4 canvassed WP:IDONTLIKEITs could well be adjudged to be a reasonable consensus. Thats not to say that is what happened in this case, but is a reason why we should always consider responses to be !votes. Rockpocket 18:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to disagree on that one. The brain-bead are usually counted as votes rather than !votes - so long as they are voting for some Admins preferred way. Of course I !wouldn't say that's what happened here either. Sarah777 (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well there is always the temptation to count !votes when it suits your POV and !count votes when its doesn't. Which is why one shouldn't close discussions when one has a POV on the subject. Moving on, I was wondering how long it would take for you to notice Domer's predicament. You are aware, as well as I, that if anyone can mount a vigorous defense of himself (with all the diffs he can muster!) it is Domer. I'm sure he is busy planning his ArbCom case as we speak. My point is that, as always is the case of privacy issues, the information will not be released to you on wiki. There is no point demanding the details be explained to you, because it will not be. There is nothing to be gained by arguing the pros or cons when we don't know all the facts (and I include myself in that, I know a little but not the whole story). Therefore can I suggest, for your own sake as much any anything, you hold comment until a formal case is brought? I shall be doing likewise. Rockpocket 23:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess if there wasn't a long record of the "community" blocking/banning/attacking Irish editors who are seeking to improve articles by trying to tone the rampant British POV then I could take secret trials more in the spirit of WP:AGF. Frankly, at this point Domer's plea of innocence is worth any amount of piffle from the Admin Community. Remember Rock; I've been a victim of the same "system". I know it can be pompous, self-righteous, ruthless and biased while also being totally wrong. Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Junk Science

(cur) (last) 02:41, 30 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (167,755 bytes) (RM Junk science from lead ---> moving to talk) (undo)
(cur) (last) 02:39, 30 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (168,760 bytes) (Partial RV:undoing collateral damage) (undo)
(cur) (last) 14:14, 29 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (168,804 bytes) (→Defining science: This should do, but man this is a messy section) (undo)
(cur) (last) 14:08, 29 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (167,799 bytes) (Rm junk science from lead to reinsert) (undo)
(cur) (last) 02:30, 28 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (168,804 bytes) (argument--->assertion in "advocates of ID argue that..." seems to be a better use of the vocab) (undo)
(cur) (last) 17:21, 27 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (168,803 bytes) (certain --> A group, fix linebreak) (undo)
(cur) (last) 18:58, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) m (167,787 bytes) (commentag-whoops) (undo)
(cur) (last) 18:58, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) m (167,787 bytes) (commentag) (undo)
(cur) (last) 18:57, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) m (167,786 bytes) (linebreak) (undo)
(cur) (last) 18:55, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (167,785 bytes) (Undid revision 241170089 by Orangemarlin (talk) + clip unequivocal, redundant and polemic, AAAS was quoted twice, now once) (undo)
(cur) (last) 18:38, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (168,142 bytes) (RM: Junk science line. I'm going to sandbox revise the whole lead at some point in the future, but the junk science line is redundant and weasely.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:49, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) m (169,129 bytes) (→Religion and leading proponents: +space) (undo)
(cur) (last) 15:48, 26 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (169,128 bytes) (→Religion and leading proponents: eliminate most weasel word, rearrange denomination for increased accuracy. Roman Catholics are NOT evangelical, other wording and linking specifications (inclGod)) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:28, 25 September 2008 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) (169,642 bytes) (Empty edit: Do not continue reverting, that constitutes edit warring, don't make us drag out RFPP, that will only end stupidly.) (undo)

Sarah777 (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Strike

Why are you striking, Sarah? And what can be done to tempt you back? Rockpocket 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, come off your strike, please. You just missed a grand party on my talk page, the other day! We would've enjoyed your company.--jeanne (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You're missed. --HighKing (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were abducted & converted into a unionist. I had no idea what became of ya. Please return soon, it's lonely on Wikipedia without ya. PS- I miss ya. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If I got down on one knee & sang Danny Boy, would ya then return? GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I think she'd probably prefer the Dubliners singing Whiskey in the Jar.--jeanne (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer U2 - more my thing! (Or Phil Lynott singing Whiskey in the Jar) Sarah777 (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Thin Lizzy version is excellent, the only problem is the woman in the Dubliners version is correctly named Jenny which happens to be my nickname, whereas Lynott named her Molly. I prefer Jenny for obvious reasons!!--jeanne (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Slight Strike Break

Hi folks - I'm checking in here to see what's going on. My strike is a protest Rock, against the defiance of normal Wiki rules in the naming of Ireland and the imposition of the legal British name on the Wiki article about Ireland, based primarily on the voting strength of the British majority hereon. And than calling that imposition "consensus" - which is the biggest joke of all. 'Cept I don't find it funny. Also peed off with that Admin who brought "civility" into a ruling, specifically mentioning me while making no mention was made of the vast torrent of "incivility" flowing from the folk who were actually involved in the dispute (I wasn't!).

At least this way they can't call me "disruptive", "uncivil" etcetera. I'm quiet as a little mouse here in the corner :) Sarah777 (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe me there are far more disruptive, uncivil editors than you-and they get away with it. I had a fierce battle with an extremely uncivil one last May. Do come off your strike, Sarah, and don't continue to be a little mouse. It's not convenient. My cat Tony likes mice. And he's far more uncivil than any editor at Wikipedia.Bet you can't guess who Tony was named after?--jeanne (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I had to give up on the Ireland name issue, Sarah. I was having better luck, nailing Jello to the wall (and the IPs were bugging me). GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Could I ask, Sarah, what your proposed solution to the Ireland (island) and Ireland (state) article naming conundrum is? I understand why the current situation may be galling, but I'm not aware what the preferred alternative is. Rockpocket 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The preferred alternative is to use the common, legal and internationally recognised name of the country, "Ireland". At the top of the article we could have "This article is about Ireland, the country. For the island of Ireland see The Island of Ireland (or Ireland (island) or [Ireland (the island)]] or some variant thereof. Sarah777 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. I think that is acceptable enough, except someone would have a hell of a lot of incorrect links to fix. Rockpocket 18:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a task I agreed to carry out myself about two years ago when I first became involved in what was already a long-running dispute. I could pass the long Winter evenings fixing links - what could be more exciting?? Sarah777 (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that everytime someone suggests or supports that (which is the obvious solution) we get swamped by editors who want to pretend the GFA did not happen. I think it needs to go to Arbcom --Snowded TALK 00:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

~~GFA?~~ (Oh, I see what you mean by GFA now) No, the real problem is that this solution, while perfectly reasonable, is no more inherently obvious that the alternative. We could equally have the island under the title, Ireland, because it is the common, legal and internationally recognised name of the island too. The country could go under the title Ireland (country) or Ireland (state). I don't really see why one is better than the other, or why ArbCom would would get involved in expressing a preference. Rockpocket 01:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not the same thing re 'legal' and 'internationally recognised'. Type in America - you get a dab page; the Continent does not get preference; nor should the island. That is the correct analogy. Sarah777 (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, thats because the correct name of the continent is North America, the country is The United States of America and the hemisphere is the Americas. "America" is ambiguous because its a shortened version, but the not the actual name, of all. Its a poor comparison to "Ireland" Rockpocket 17:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Having Ireland (state) and Ireland (island) might be a compromise. However we have a group of editors who are absolutely intent on keeping ROI (look at the history) and are using "consensus" to sustain that position, Its happened several times and their is an air of smug satisfaction everytime they bring any proposal to the change to the ground by constantly ignoring summaries of evidence or proposals for compromise. When a dispute goes on and on it needs to go up. --Snowded TALK 01:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there is evidence of politicization of the issue from editors on all sides. My experience of ArbCom is that, when it comes to the Irish/British issues, the remedies rarely favor the Irish perspective. Rockpocket 02:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd put it much less politely than that but sure t'would only be gettin' me in more trouble ;) Sarah777 (talk) 09:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I don't always agree with your opinions, but you surely have the right to express them. I think people are a bit envious, because you are so articulate and have such a splendid command of the English language, and you are also very humorous. I am curious about one wee thing. On the BI talk page you suggested that my reading matter was boring. Which of my listed favourite books do you find boring (please don't say ALL of them)?--jeanne (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I?! I must have been in fightin' mood - I'll check out that list right now. Sarah777 (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Re humour; I've discovered the hard way that humour doesn't always travel well on Wiki - there are essays on the subject. It's a pity I didn't read them sooner! Sarah777 (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you've returned; here it goes: 'Oh Danny Boy, the pipes they are a calling' Oh Danny, oh Danny.... GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ta G'day. But I'm only partially returned. Note I am not adding any content to the encyclopedia (just like an Admin) - so I reckon I'm still on strike. Sarah777 (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

'Tis alright, I'm not big on adding/subtracting content. I'm usually into minor edits (dates, years etc). GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Make all your edits minor

And all your dates put right

No contribution's finer

I bid G'Day G'Night

Sarah777 (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Republic of Ireland

I just read your comments here, and the very same issue is being discussed on this request for move here. I will be raising the whole question on RoI when this request is out of the way. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this canvassing? Mooretwin (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord! I didn't realise the article on the flag was moved; but if this doesn't convince the slow-learners in Ireland of the hazards of calling the country "RoI" then I guess nothing will. Frankly that move is so absurd that I'm tempted to be WP:BOLD and simply reverse the move. Sarah777 (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't see that one coming. I actually agree with you concerning the naming of the article, if you look at the talk page you will see that. Yep, two days on wiki, so please give me time to learn the ropes on editing articles before judging my contributions. There was me trying to be nice, welcome to wikipedia indeed. Cheers! Titch Tucker (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

TT, I didn't get where I am today (!) by being nice. I am forever watchful for trolls and socks and as you are such a quick learner I was a bit suspicious. Now I can see that you are actually a very upstanding but exceptionally bright Wikipedian and I look forward to your next 90 edits :) Sarah777 (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have forgotten it already. I never have been the type that storms off feeling all offended over a few words. I shall leave you now to create a literary masterpiece never before witnessed by mere mortals. Alternatively, to avoid being shouted at, I shall play dumb and pretend I am an illiterate fool who doesn,t know his apostrophe,s from his comma,s. Time will tell. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal

Disappointing. -- Evertype·✆ 08:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there was concern at the move while the Task Force was ongoing; losing key supporters of the move meant we were going nowhere. Sarah777 (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Where do I find the Task Force? -- Evertype·✆ 11:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Here. Waggers (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoigh

Regarding your move of the page... wouldnt Eire be better ? slan seat, iDangerMouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.32.254 (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Sarah777 (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The Cowardly Clement VII, the Sack of Rome (1527) and the Bay of Pigs

Need a random break so I thought I'd give it a catchy title ;) Sarah777 (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Other than the Royal family, where are they. Where can we find these Normans masquerading as English people? Titch Tucker (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes Titch Clement VII was the cowardly Pope held prisoner by Charles V after the Sack of Rome in 1527. He didn't want to annul Henry's marriage to Catherine seeing as that would have been tantamount to calling Catherine a whore and she was Charles' aunt.--jeanne (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Family is mainly German not Norman. Princess Diana had a bit of Norman blood however. Also Norman- Irish (The Earls of Fermoy).--jeanne (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Those "English peasants" had their revenge in the guise of Cromwell. He went after the Norman-descended nobility then proceeded to slaughter the mixed Norman-Celtic Irish!--jeanne (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, thanks to Anglo-American dominated NATO, European soil has never been so bloodless. Never.--jeanne (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the closest we ever came to WWIII was when Kennedy was in the White House.--jeanne (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Or was it in 1973 when it looked like the Egyptians were going to liberate Palestine? I've read that we were very close. Sarah777 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the Soviets were experts at making veiled threats and the Americans knew how far they could push them. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Soviets were afraid of the Kennedy brothers. Bobby did nothing by halves.--jeanne (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure afraid is the right word Jeanne. The Cuban missile crisis ended with an agreement whereby the USSR would withdraw all nuclear warheads from Cuba and the US would withdraw all theirs from Turkey bordering Russia. If we are taking it from a starting point then the USSR got the better deal. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No they didn't. The Soviets lost a unique opportunity to have their missiles off the US coast while the US just lost their's in Turkey. Most people in Moscow wouldn't have worried about Turkey as much as Americans on the US East coast if there were enemy warheads in Cuba. The US still had their warheads in other parts of Europe aimed at the USSR. No comparison at all, the US thanks to Kennedy won the day.--jeanne (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes they did! :) They sure didn't frighten Castro with the debacle at the Bay of pigs. I'm sure if you were living in Russia at the time you would have looked at it with a different perspective. Sometimes you have to ignore all the propaganda. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Pay of Pigs disaster was a calamity and probably was one of the factors which cost Kennedy his life. The Anti-Castro Cubans never forgave him for it. But Khruschev didn't trust Kennedy nor his brother Bobby. For the Russians the Kennedys were an unknown quantity. Castro probably is the only living person who knows what happened at Dallas 22 November 1963 and will take it with him to his grave. No, I don't believe Castro had a hand in it.--jeanne (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A fair anology for the cold war was the conflict between Carthage and Rome (without the elephants). There was only going to be enough room in the world for one of them. Of course, there was no direct war between the US and Russia, it was mostly a war of ideology. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The USA won the Cold War to be sure, but wasn't it really a Pyrric victory? The US is probably the most hated nation on the Earth, and the Americans are made to take the rap for every ill in the universe. May I inquire as to your nationality ,Titch? You are very well-informed and polite. It's a pleasure engaging in debate with you.--jeanne (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jeanne, let me return the compliment, you are obviously well read and erudite. As`for my nationality, I'm Scottish with a mixture of other nationalities thrown in there and I've lived in a few countries round the world.. But if asked, I reply Scottish. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I love Edinburgh, it' one of my favourite cities. I had a Scottish boyfriend once, Alex from Glasgow, a fanatic Celtics supporter. About the USA/USSR stand-off, I find it ironic that Americans spent decades fearing the Russians, yet the deadliest attack against America-on US soil- didn't involve the Russians at all.--jeanne (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Alex couldn't have been a bad lad, he was a Celtic supporter after all. War in the 21st century is never going to be head on, its always going to be hit and run. I will say something though, if you look at history, every power has their day. The US, whether we like it or not, will go the same way as Carthage, Rome, and the British Empire. These things are inevitable, its just how long they last. Titch Tucker (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that the new superpower will be China. They've already conquered the world market. And money is power. They've certainly got the people, the brains and the atom bomb.--jeanne (talk) 06:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Normans can be found in the House of Lords, among the aristocracy, and in most of the top jobs. It's true that in the 20th century the aristocracy gradually lost at least some of its power, but money still talks. When the British Empire was at its height, the Normans were still very much in charge. You're right though, I have to admit though that the only time that they weren't, temporarily, was under Cromwell, who - I believe - is not particularly highly regarded in Ireland, though in England he is justifiably acclaimed for asserting parliamentary sovereignty (for all his other faults, warts and all). ðarkun coll 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Who will stand up for the poor old celts who were invaded by the angles, saxons and various other peoples. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The Normans can be found in the House of Lords, among the aristocracy, and in most of the top jobs. Huh; just like the Irish, eh? Just goes to show that when it came to extermination Cromwell lacked the gas chamber technology. And the nukes. Sarah777 (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Or indeed the poor old Neolithic and Bronze Age tribes, now nameless, who were invaded by successive waves of Celts? ðarkun coll 17:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ollie was so loved that when he died the English got rid of his son, Tumbledown Dick and begged Old Rowley to come back on his throne to reign o'er all. Charles with his French Bourbon mother and English blood which could be measured in an eye-dropper.--jeanne (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Tharky, I must beg to differ when you say the Normans were in power during the Empire. Many of the Norman nobility died on the bloody battlefields during the Wars of the Roses and a new nobility was created by Henry VII made up of wealthy English merchants who took aristocratic Norman wives. Thomas Boleyn, the father of Anne was one of these. Charles Brandon another.--jeanne (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Ireland

I was looking forward to your clock ticking method being put in motion; would've made a good Halloween Wiki special (IMO). GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I wasn't looking forward ti it - I'm glad it proved unnecessary. Sarah777 (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

IRC

I've never been at that site. From what I've heard of it (via Giano), it basically a gossip corner. You'll have to ask Giano for the link. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just asked him. BigDunc^Talk 18:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I ain't got the link. But, I'm guessing it's at the Internet Relay Chat article. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of effort to listen to some gossip. Sarah777 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never been there (at IRC). If it's a sister-project to Wikipedia, it should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to delete it!! :) Sarah777 (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither will I. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

All Souls' Day

Having made it through Halloween we now find ourselves in All Souls' Day 'cos tomorrow is Sunday. (Apologies to non-Catholics, these matters are complex). When Saints' and Souls' together fall, the Ghouls out of their caverns crawl. Don't say ye weren't warned. Sarah777 (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Soul Man, dat dat dat; I'm a Soul Man. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OOOH, wanna hear something ghoulish? Last evening I went to the All Saints Mass, which the Italians celebrate as the Feast of the Dead, well just as the priest lifted the host, the wine cup tipped over and spillled the wine all over the altar and bible. He freaked out-was convinced there was a wee demon inside the church!I was reminded of that old Eric Burdon song Spill the Wine.GooodDay, you need to sing Soul Man accompanied by a saxophone.--jeanne (talk) 06:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah

Thanks Sarah. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oversight

Hi Sarah: I don't know if anyone answered your several questions as to what "oversight" means in the wiki world. (I had a headache before I could finish reading all the text.) I was puzzled, too, as the word seems to be used in more than one way. WP:Oversight says: Oversight on the Wikipedia is a form of extreme deletion, intended for privacy, defamation and copyrighted information which are to be expunged from any form of usual access. Oversighted edits differ from normal deletion performed by administrators, since once removed, they cannot be seen even by administrators, nor can they easily be restored to the database. I hope that is useful, even if not helpful, in this specific instance. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I meant in this specific instance. Admins can't see oversighted edits, so I can't tell where there were more edits to that article than those listed in the deletion log. Rockpocket 03:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. I kept reading it in sentences that didn't appear to make sense using the conventional meaning of "oversight". Bielle - Thanks for taking the trouble to read the whole of WP:Oversight just to answer my question! I owe you one :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I came here also to answer Sarah's request for an explanation. In brief, most times that something needs deleting, it's just enough to remove it thoroughly from public view, which any administrator can do. Administrators will then consider carefully (or should) giving out a copy of deleted material. A common example when this might be okay is a user who wrote an article that was just not encyclopedic, got AFD'ed and they want to keep a copy of the text. On the other hand if the material was purely defamatory or a copyright violation, then it's usually not okay.

Admin deletion's usually fine. But sometimes, in a minority of cases, even admins shouldn't be able to look up the information. For example if the post contains some kinds of personal privacy breach, or Mike Godwin (the WMF attorney) feels there is a serious enough problem with it from a legal viewpoint, or serious defamation issues are involved, it may need to be expunged from the wiki so that not even administrators can see it. With 1600 admins, a person who really wanted access to a deleted edit might find someone willing to believe their story (however unlikely) and give them a copy. Put that in the context of genuine harassment (a user who's removed personal information from their user page to prevent an obsessive wiki-stalker harassing them off-wiki, for example), and that's an example why sometimes complete removal from the wiki is needed.

The oversight log is mostly made up of privacy breaching material removed from public view. Only a very few users (WMF staff, stewards, and locally appointed oversighters) can see oversighted edits. It's ultimately controlled by the Foundation itself. As a safeguard, a project can't have just one oversighter - it must have two or more, so they can have any oversighted edits checked by others.

General background. The link to Wikipedia:Oversight that Bielle's given has the rest. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you FT2. I guess protecting privacy and also protecting Wiki from being in legal hazard is an eternal problem. In my own little corner you'd be amazed at sort of stuff and the amount of statements about RL people in small towns and villages which are utterly libelous. Often as a joke I imagine judging by the amount of this sort of thing happens after the pubs close on Friday and Saturday nights! But obviously Mr X, a happily married solicitor from Ballygomorragh, might be very irate to read that he is a pedarist and has a gay lover in a neighbouring village. Sarah777 (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, Sarah, and you owe me nothing at all, at all. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)