User talk:Sarah777/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sarah777. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A Modest Proposal

I have decided to start my campaign to be an administrator. I, too, want to be able to make biased daft arbitrary decisions and feel the POWER that comes from blocking folk. God, it must FEEL SO GOOD. Imagine, I'm some inadequate little runt with the mental capacity of a BNP supporter and yet I don't have to defend my position - I can just BLOCK. F** you - I've got the BIG GUN, he he he! So; where do I apply? (Sarah777 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

I'll support you, you seem feisty ;)--Barryob Vigeur de dessus 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Barry. I'd like to award you a BARNSTAR for...something - but this goddamn block.....(Sarah777 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

RE: The British Isles and Ireland - Naming Dispute

Hi there Sarah! I agree with your estimation that Irish and British opinions are often irreconcilable in these sorts of areas. It seems like we've seen quite a few examples of this over the past few months, hehe. With regards to your suggested article, you may want to check out the British Isles naming dispute article, which appears to be relevant here. If you're feeling harassed by other users, I would be more than happy to talk to these fellows and ask them to stop. I apologise for the lack of immediate help, but if you could point me in a specific direction, I would certainly be up for providing a fresh set of eyes on a subject gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks G! But its too late; my time in purgatory is nearly up. My main beef is that folk who endlessly cite Wiki-rules at me chose to completely ignore them themselves and simply abuse their power by blocking out the alternative view. Other parties to this dispute breached 3RR and are now cowering in the wings, unpunished. On a scale of 1 to 10; what do you reckon my chances of making an administrator would be? (My main platform would be, basically, revenge - there are at least half a dozen on my permanent block list!) (Sarah777 22:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Welcome

Nice to see you back. The challenge on my talk is still unmet. See, most of the probs are in peoples minds, and when asked to back up the rhetoric, there is no response. Thanks for support. Gold♥ 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Excuse me Waggers, your views would have more credibility and carry more weight if I had evidence of any attempt by you to chastise those making personal attacks on me. The Administrator in question made a very unprofessional response to my "unblock" request and retorted with a personal attack. Are you going to take his behaviour to task? (A specific reply to this would be appreciated). (Sarah777 09:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

OK. Firstly, calling someone brain-dead when they're clearly not is a personal attack. Asking someone to stop trolling when they have indeed been trolling may not be pleasant but I don't think it really falls into WP:ATTACK - it's a description of your edits, not yourself personally. If you read the Edit Warring section of WP:TROLL, I hope you'll agree that your recent behaviour fits the bill. Secondly, the admin himself responded to you here this morning and quite rightly pointed you to WP:AN/I. As an individual administrator I can't take any action against him unless your complaint goes through the proper channels, so that my admin colleagues can get involved and reach consensus. If you still feel that the admin in question's actions were wrong and need addressing, please do report it to WP:AN/I - that's what it's there for. Waggers 09:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention - if you feel that WP:AN/I is a step too far but still feel there's been a breach of etiquette, WP:WQA may be the place to go. Waggers 09:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, at no time have I claimed to be without prejudice, and I certainly do have my own viewpoints. But at the same time I respect the policies of this project, and that includes putting my own opinions aside in order to strive for neutrality.

I don't make formal complaints and have never sought to get anyone debarred/blocked; preferring to deal with them myself. - perhaps this is the reason why there's so much hot air around. I wouldn't say my approach is excessively legalistic, but the policies of this project have been thought out and debated over a long period of time and are there for a very good reason. Most of the time, a purely common sense approach is all that's needed - but in times of conflict, that's when we should turn to the policies and guidelines that are there to help us all. As I said before, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If "preferring to deal with them myself" means alienating the rest of the Wikipedia community from an issue, I strongly recommend against it. There are plenty of Wikipedia users who are willing to help out with issues like this, I suggest you allow them to help you when you need assistance rather than acting like a lone crusader. As I said to sony-youth, we're all on the same side. Waggers 10:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY

This user is anti-Wikianglocentricanarianism

The Celtic Isles

Hey. I would love to help but I have already tried and it's like to talking to a bunch of auld conservative a***holes. They don't listen to reason and are clearly bitter over the collapse of their empire. The word British in front of the isles gives them some form of perculiar sense of being better than Ireland, something the British have always believed but has of course never been true. See here and to a lesser extent here. Sorry.--Play Brian Moore 12:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you put it rather well Mr Swine. I doubt if anyway here could disagree with you. (Sarah777 14:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Cheers. I know they watch people like us but he seemed like a nice enough user. I'm only a twat to those who bring up name debates or act the tw*t to me.--Play Brian Moore 00:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you used to be a troll?

Why aren't you one anymore? I'm curious about the transition. My guess is this is not uncommon here.

Well, I wasn't a troll on Wiki! (Despite the allegations) I find this place is more productive than messing around on newspaper websites. And I agree, just look at the Admins here; some are struggling to stop themselves descending into bouts of trollery. The transition? I guess like vandalism - while most of it is mindless bilge - some can be very witty the FIRST time you come across it. After 6 months of zapping it I find it ALL becomes tiresome. Like hearing the same joke over and over. (Sarah777 07:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Very interesting. I happen to find clever trolling amusing. I also think wikipedia, in its current form, is doomed to failure. (An uncitable encyclopedia?) Anyway, your notion that the line between editing and trolling is a fine one is surely true. Many of the editors here seem to release anger by abusing their privileges, given they generally can't troll anymore. (Though I'm sure some still do anonymously.)

Well, while I admit things like "before the introduction of the potato, a period when most people had very small ears, the main source of nutrition was...." can be amusing, on the other hand trolling becomes pure vandalism when it is constantly repeated. Example from memory is the Phibsboro article, when some clever stuff about a "Pap Gegerty" was inserted, but after the 20th insertion it became VERY tiresome. As for Wiki, the uncitability is something I'd agree with. If you google anything (eg British Isles, my favourite political phrase), the first three returns are Wiki; you only get a proper definition in the first non-Wiki return! If Wiki could cite itself, you'd have to go to page 10 before you got an alternative view. In this case I'd argue that Wiki is actually actively restoring a term that was falling out of general use outside of Britain. This is akin to the Star Trek folks breaking their prime directive and messing about with the evolution of a planet. Will Wiki survive - I think so; but as one of many similar Wikis. For example, thinking about the BI conundrum it struck me that (barring time and resources) there is nothing to stop someone lifting the entire body of Wiki-work relating to Ireland and using it to create an Irish Wiki which is not beset by the editorial prejudices of another country. The Irish "Manual of Style" could do with a major re-write! But it won't get one here. Now a question to you; (firstly I'd like to assure anyone who happens to read this that you are not me, Eoghan (can't write!) or anyone associated with me doing a bit of trolling) - so who are YOU?? Are you an Admin; a regular contributor - I'd guess yes! Regards (Sarah777 08:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for the detailed response! The BI issue is so emotionally loaded that the best an encyclopedia could hope to do is document rather than settle the controversy. (Funny, the article on Hiberno-English is reasonably uncontroversial. I guess nobody feels like coming to blows over linguistic distinctions at the moment.) And for the record, I have no prior association with you. I can't remember how I happened upon your user page, but it caught my attention. As for me, I'm nobody important. I did my share of "serious" financial and textual contributions here once upon a time, but have long since given upon wikipedia as a serious enterprise. This feeling was particularly exacerbated by seeing well my considered additions bowdlerized by clueless editors and admins, even though I have superb, world-class academic credentials in my area of expertise. Now, I'm a humble troublemaker for the most part, although I'll correct egregious errors here and there simply because I must. In my opinion, the downfall of wikipedia will surely be its combination of anonymous editing, lying contributors, and admins who wantonly abuse their positions. (I see you've experienced the latter of these recently. My sympathies.)

Re: British Isles template

Hi Sarah

{{British Isles}} is a navigational template - you can find out more about the purpose of such templates at WP:NAV.

In response to my message to Sony (we all have the same aim - improving Wikipedia and ensuring that articles are written from a neutral point of view.) you said Unfortunately, that is simply not true! It is blindingly obvious that the majority of British editors have a completely different take on this issue than the majority of Irish editors. Now, while I agree that British and Irish editors may have different viewpoints about the name of the British Isles, I believe that the majority, if not all, of (non vandal) editors share the aim I stated. I don't see why nationality would make any difference to that, and ask you again to assume good faith about other editors on the project.

you even caught a certain editor who you'd assumed supported your view confessing that he didn't really - not at all. I knew what Sony's views were. He's a very good editor and supports the principles behind Wikipedia, and abides by policy. I wasn't surprised at his viewpoint, I was surprised at his apparent "them and us" attitude - something that turned out to be a misunderstanding. Sony is a great example of someone who can state his case, disagree with other editors, and at the same time remain civil. You would do well to follow that example.

So this article CANNOT be written without a POV. I strongly disagree with that. WP:NPOV explains very well how to deal with different points of view in an article, and I've seen it work several times over on controversial articles in Wikipedia. Provided that all editors involved abide by policy and accept it when consensus goes against them, a neutral article is easily achievable.

All we have now is the imposition of dictat by the majority, NOT npov. No. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is a meritocracy. Several changes to the BI article have been made through discussion and consensus, where the ideas that have been put forward are good and explained well. If a really good, infallible argument was put forward as to why the article should be given a different name, one that nobody could argue against, then the name would be changed. But so far the only argument I've seen you come up with is that you personally find the term "British" offensive in some way. To change the article on that basis alone would mean Wikipedia endorsing your point of view over all others (a clear breach of WP:NPOV), Wikipedia being censored to avoid causing offence (a clear breach of WP:NOT#CENSOR), Wikipedia allowing you to effectively own the article (a clear breach of WP:OWN), it would cause confusion for a lot of readers who would expect to find the article under it's most popular English name (a breach of WP:NAME) - I could go on, but surely that's enough.

And now I read you in the template page saying (paraphrase) "the Islands are called the British Isles on Wiki and we have a strict policy which says we push that into every article regardless of who we offend." That attitude is what is causing the endless cycle of rows about this issue. As I believe I said to you before, if you don't like Wikipedia policy, feel free to try and get it changed. Guidance on how to do that is available at WP:POLICY. But moaning about the policies you don't like, or (worse) breaching them or gaming the system to circumvent them, is going to achieve nothing.

Wikipedia is a collaboration, that means we all have to give and take a bit. Taking a firm, unmovable line is not going to help anybody. If you're desperate to write an article that illustrates your point of view and ignores all others, or that shows how you think things should be as opposed to how they really are, there are other places you can do that. Hope this helps, Waggers 07:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really much help here! I strongly disagree with you that the BI article is NPOV; it is being forced by the simple fact that British editors heavily outnumber Irish ones; when the going gets heated in that debate the British POV prevails by weight of numbers. Simple as that. And I don't want a PERSONAL article; I want a article that respects the Irish view of our own geography. Nothing I have heard comes near to convincing me that most British editors even understand this issue. Please don't preach. The key issue is not that I personally object to Ireland being described as a "British Isle" - it is that the the current article is manifestly (British) POV. The determination to prevent an alternative article reflecting a more balanced viewpoint which I have just seen is illustrative of the problem. Finally, as regards Sony adhering to civil - check out the endless stream of accusations he has directed and you may appreciate that I cannot agree with you on that either! (Sarah777 10:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Again, I need specific examples. In what way is the BI article biassed? Geography is geography - personal opinion doesn't come into it. Politics and personal opinion can't change the fact that the island of Ireland is located within the group of islands popularly called the British Isles. Is there anything in the article, other than the name, that you think is not described from a neutral point of view? Waggers 11:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just the name. Which is not only "not popular" but is offensive and virtually unused in the RoI. Unused because it is offensive. Offensive because it is NOT a neutral geographical name but pure 100% POV. The group of islands is Britain and Ireland, as commonly known; or The British Islands and Ireland, if you want to be technically correct. (Sarah777 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Deansgrange

Hi Sarah, I wasn't quite sure if it was a better format for the image. And I live within a couple of miles from the location, see it every day. I really got a put-off from the BI talk page. When one can't argue the facts with the PAs being generated, it doesn't help with the accord. It's probably not always intentional, but editors should always address the issues. I'll stay out of it for a few more days, and have a look again. Gold♥ 12:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah, never on the darn thing, think I's a foreigner! Gold♥ 21:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Languages

Dear Sarah, I don't see why the title English language should be used, given that the title for this article is 'Languages'. As regards 'Irish Language', I prefer the more accurate term 'Irish Gaelic' as it more accurately represents the term 'Gaeilge na hÉireann' and reminds one that it is not just confined to the island of Ireland.

"Irish" is the almost universally used term for the language in the Irish context. I guess your reason for removing "language" after the word English is sensible. (Sarah777 21:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)) Dear Sarah, I don't see why the title English language should be used, given that the title for this article is 'Languages'. As regards 'Irish Language', I prefer the more accurate term 'Irish Gaelic' as it more accurately represents the term 'Gaeilge na hÉireann' and reminds one that it is not just confined to the island of Ireland.

"Irish" is the almost universally used term for the language in the Irish context. I guess your reason for removing "language" after the word English is sensible. (Sarah777 21:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

RE: "Irish" is the almost universally used term for the language in the Irish context.

This use is relatively modern. It is noteworthy that the organization which did most to 'save' the language was called 'The Gaelic League' not the 'Irish Language League'. My own mother ( she was born of Gaelic speaking parents, in Fintown, Co. Donegal) always referred to the language as 'The Gaelic' not 'Irish'. The use of the definite article (the) before the noun is a feature of the language and was used both in Scotland and Ireland by native speakers or those who had parents who were native speakers.

That the term 'Irish' is promoted as the best fit is not surprising, given the fact that the Irish Government has long been in favour of this term, indeed it has proclaimed the term 'Gaelic' as pejorative.

This situation is not ( unfortunately) unique. We are offered 'Spanish' as a subject at school, however the name 'castellano' is widely used for the language as a whole in Latin America. Some Spanish speakers consider castellano a generic term with no political or ideological links, much as "Spanish" is in English.

The reasoning behind the decision of the Irish state ( to use of 'Irish' and not 'Gaelic') can be better understood if one takes the political posturing and nationalist rhetoric of the times into consideration. Revivalists who associated the language with nationalism preferred to call the language ‘Irish’ in order to give it a national image (political / ideological links). That some Protestants have been 'turned off' by this move is of course a sad reflection of the lack of political maturity of our leaders, who have come in the main from English speaking backgrounds.

In English, the term Gaelic applies to both Scottish and Irish Gaelic, and this may sometimes lead to confusion when the context is not clear.

It is more sensible therefore to make such (rare) instances clear, rather than using a politically loaded term! This can be done easily by using 'Irish Gaelic' and not simply Irish. Let us copy the people in Scotland, where 'Gaelic' or 'the Gaelic' is universally used and where 'Scottish Gaelic' is usually used when confusion with its Irish Gaelic sister may cause confusion. Eog1916 02:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely how we got here is simply historical? (As I have been told over and over by anti-Nationalists/British when discussing the title "British Isles"). The fact is "Irish" is the commonly used term in Ireland and Wiki seeks to reflect what IS rather than what might be correct. Also, given that the history of colonialism and attempts to wipe out Gaelic culture have been two sides of the same coin; it is hardly fair to criticise nationalists for making the connection!(Sarah777 03:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

NEUTRALITY

This user is anti-Wikianglocentricanarianism

Anonymous editing

Sarah, you have a great editing record, and it's nice to see there are good people on wp too. Justice, generally, is not a big attribute of wp, but expediency is. WP wouldn't need so many admins if it introduced "account only" editing, and I believe that this is a real problem setting into the project. The quality of procedure is being diluted and compromised and unless wp pulls up its socks on these matters, everyone will be the loser. Cheers! Gold♥ 13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gold. I would certainly agree with 'account only' editing. There is a classic example of "trolling" in the Shankill, Dublin article. An anonymous contributor whose record appears to suggest that he/she only exists to change a few lines in the Shankill article is making sterling efforts to provoke a reaction from me. (In my view this is almost certainly some editor, possibly even a name known to us, trolling - it could even be an administrator waiting to pounce on any slip!). But with unaccountable editing we will never know. Regards (Sarah777 21:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Hi Sarah, here is another article that received a load of pov today, its Donegal fiddle tradition. Basically, the edits were swiped from a Scottish based website on the internet, to give the article a povish slant. Unfortunately I haven't read the reference books indicated at the bottom, and I doubt if today's editor has either. So I can't really edit it back to a balanced article, even though I have read some different sources on the subject. Yesterday it was the Great Irish Warpipes that got a similar hammering of the same pov style editing. I'll get some books from the library. There are about at least a dozen more articles that need some balanced input, just to get them right. These battle-grounds will go on forever on the WP. Gold♥ 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rochfortbridge

Hello folks, I didn't spot this earlier. You should add comments at the end of the page rather than the top - it's where we expect to find them! I've moved them down. Regards (Sarah777 10:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

I have made an edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochfortbridge as part of the actual history of the village. I have a problem that meybe you can help. every time i edit this page it is reverted or re-edited and it is all done by one user. that user has used several different usernames and used different IP addresses with the result that I am the one always banned as a vandal. if you have a spare few minutes just look back at this site and you will see that was I that expanded it firstly from a meger stub. then i set up my own wiki. and every time i enter my wiki as a link or undo vandalous edits to the site I created, I get scallded. when all is said and done, almost all of this sites content is my work but I get banned most often as a vandal. just look for yourself. I am Denisponeill - new user name EarlofBelvedere always the same IP address - thanks in advance - PS the site I lint to is http://rochfortbridge.wetpaint.com if you want to validate my authenticity - denisponeill@eircom.net

Hello Denis, I'll have a look if you think I can help. I earlier deleted that [1] link because you shouldn't really put it in the infobox and when I tried it it appeared dead. Put it back in under "external links" if you wish. Regards (Sarah777 10:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Hi, I'm Wikidrone20000, I have been keeping an eye on the Rochfortbridge website and yes have reverted a good couple of times but this WAS due to vandalism. not just by the user above. I'm not pointing the finger but there are some about who have been just taking out other folks recolections and personal history and to them fact just for the sake of their own satisfaction. Check out with Pilotguy and others and they'll let you know what they have experienced on this site and why the user above had been temporarily and then extended blocked.
There is a lot of mixed feelings and beliefs on Rochfortbridge and no doubt the user above has a lot of experience, HOWEVER, the issue arose when this user began taking out factual info and changing text to appear insulting to certain areas of society (It's all in the history). I have always tried to adjust the Rochfortbridge section with a balanced mind and welcome any inputs this user above chooses to add in, ONCE it is within the boundaries of respect. The user has experience but should remember that other people have different sources and info. The Reason why the wetpaint link was modified (Not deleted) was that www.Rochfortbridge.com is the locally recognised community website and the wetpaint.rochfortbridge.com website is more of a private one.
Sincerely, --Wikidrone20000 10:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Wikidrone; actually it is deleted now! I deleted it as it was in the wrong place and appeared "dead" when I tried to check it out. I'll read the history and get back to both - but this seems like I'm walking into a family affair! Regards (Sarah777 10:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Hi Sarah777, No it's not a family thing, more a clash of personalities and poor manners on the other half. Thanks for taking the time to read through the history. I was not trying to annoy him, just trying to make the representation of the town more accurate and balanced. Thanks again!--Wikidrone20000 21:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC) :)

Hi Sarah777, you stopped your review of the page just a little too soon, the user Wikidrone 20000 was then using the name Thomas 999 or unsigned in edits then was banned as user Wikidrone 2000 so, added a zero on yet another account and started fresh. I have been using the same username and IP address since i expanded the wiki. at this point, due to edits, ALL the text in the article History section was written by me. continue from where you left off if you do get a chance. As with a lot of things in this world it is often the person that starts a good idea that gets shoved aside. Please continue from your last stop and then you will see the vandalism at work.

OK. Tomorrow! I'm up to my neck in alligators in another row right now!!(Sarah777 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Sarah777, did you ever get to check to the end of the edits on rochfortbridge page? well, take a look at the new edits by Wikidrone2000, aka wikidrone20000, aka tomas999 plus multiple anonymous edits via multiple IP addresses. just look for yourself and then you'll see what I mean. granted I may have been as childish but not as vindictive, this chap even deleted a complete page that I created. (check Denisoneill contribs for christ church gaulstown) and removed my link from other sites (Belvedere) now he/she has added a lint to his/her website as a community memo board when in fact it is a link to the same websites guestbook, now I ask you, how can this editor call him/herself balanced. with a view as this person has, quote above "www.Rochfortbridge.com is the locally recognised community website and the wetpaint.rochfortbridge.com website is more of a private one" un quote, this editor has only one focus, to eliminate all other websites other than the websites linked to him/her and his/her activities. Denisoneill

Apologies Denis...forgot all about it! Distracted by various bans etc. Will look into it tomorrow, regards (Sarah777 01:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Hi Sarah777, Sorry about this again but just to clear something up. I AM Wikidrone20000, I used to be Wikidrone2000 but forgot my password and hadn't set up an email address for retrieval. I was never tomas999 nor have I left messages from various IP addresses just one when I was away from my desk. I have never deleted a whole page from this guy or a link to belvedere. I am nothing to do with www.rochfortbridge.com although I hold it in higher regard than the wetpaint one. I rate his site quite highly and have no intention of upsetting anyone. Hope this clears things up and best of luck Denis, no intention was ever made to insult you, just keep the facts straight. Or straight as can be. --Wikidrone20000 09:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I'm sorry to say this, but I really don't know how to upload images (I'm not the image kind of guy). I only delete the local image once they have been properly uploaded. So I apologize again if I'm not of much help. —Kurykh 01:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, I saw Kurykh's reply to your talk page, and thought I'd offer my opinion. Images uploaded to Wikipedia cannot (currently) be transferred automatically to Commons; they must be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. In the case of Image:IMG BlackwaterBridge3720rz.jpg (which you uploaded here), for example, User:Finnrind uploaded the image, complete with the file history and credit to you as the photographer, to Commons. If you want to upload your images to Commons, you will need to create a separate account there and upload them manually (at least until single user login is implemented). Hope this helps! Cheers, Iamunknown 01:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...but how did he upload them from the the Wiki page to Commons, as I'm assuming he hasn't got the original file on my computer...or else Big Brother is watching me even closer than I feared! (Sarah777 01:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

In the case of Image:IMG BlackwaterBridge3720rz.jpg, one can easily get the image by following this link (which is provided with the text "Full resolution" beneath the image on the image description page). I assume the uploader at Commons saw your photograph, wanted to use it on a project other than the English-language Wikipedia, uploaded it, tagged the one here for deletion (as a duplicate), and voilà! that is where we are now. --Iamunknown 01:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have tried and tried but I still can't upload a file from en:Wiki to Commons. Call me stoopid I guess...everyone else does!! (Sarah777 13:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

No, the upload process isn't very user-friendly, and you are not alone in finding issue with it. Have you signed up for an account at Commons? Just follow this link. --Iamunknown 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Alas! I have an account at Commons. It's trying to following the 10 steps for uploading that I get stuck...it always tells me my target file doesn't exist. (Sarah777 09:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Great Irish Famine

Please -let's not revert-war over this. The discussion is going fairly well to-date & we should probably keep at it - Alison ☺ 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Famine

Sarah - can you please follow proper procedures? First, the result of any discussion and vote will be a move (or not); not a redirect. Second - it is not a case of WP:SNOW. The article has been in existence for ages, has many editors, active discussion, and now an active debate on a move (again, not a redirect). The note about the proposed move only went up within the last 24 hours and many therefore won't have seen it. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, a copy/paste move is so not the way to do it, as the edit history gets completely messed up - Alison ☺ 23:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not revert warring - this is a clear cut case; it wasn't a "potato famine". Let's just change it. Only Sony disagreed. I'm not to keen on the idea of different rules for different cases which ALWAYS appear to favour the holocaust deniers like Sony. (Sarah777 23:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

1641

Ok, well, first conspirators is not a value laden word. They were a small group of men who planned a quick siezure of power. Conspirators describes them precisely. In any case, it is not a judgment on them one way or the other. Secondly, you have just gone through the text inserting your own pov.

For example, you have deleted the sentence explaining the extent to which the protestant community could be considered to have been the victim of a 'genocide', as we would call it today, ora 'general massacre' as they referred to it at the time. Actually, as the text explains, this was not really the case.

You have also altered a load of other small things, for example, deleting the reference to the over-reaction of the Lord Justice in Dublin Castle on the outbreak of the rebellion. This is a very important point that was stressed in all the contemporary accounts of the outbreak of the rebellion. The point here is that a small faction went into rebellion initially, the remainder of the catholic landed class joined it because they were afraid of the authorities reaction. But on the point of another sentence you have altered, the government in Dublin Castle never instituted a system of collective punishment. The point here was that Catholics were afraid that this was going to happen. The whole situation was driven by mutal and reinforcing paranoia on all sides.

Thirdly you have insterted a sentence on 'Cromwell's genocidal march across the country'. Without getting into what is a complicated debate, (have a look at the talk page at Cromwellian conquest of Ireland) this is not informed or objective.

I don't want to be rude, but have you actually studied this period in Irish history? There is no point in having a 20th century pov war over a 17th century event. The pov just won't fit and it's a waste of everybody's time.

Jdorney 23:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Conspirators", in modern English, is manifestly pejorative as currently used, "Organisers" is a neutral technical term. In modern parlance Cromwell's actions were genocidal. "protestant community" in the context of 1640 is PC nonsense; they were colonial settlers, in modern parlance - ethnic cleansers. You can claim that ethnic cleansing, like slavery, was not considered a big deal in 1640; that DOES NOT change what it is. The Penal Laws WERE collective punishment; as were the massacre of civilians in various towns. Maybe standard practice throughout the world in 1640; still collective punishment in modern English. "by mutal and reinforcing paranoia on all sides" - when one side is invading the territory of another that is pretty inevitable; hardly needs stating! "Have you actually studied this period in Irish history?"

Most certainly - history isn't neutral!!! I doubt we'd agree on the "history" of events we've both lived through in the past 10 years - we can only report FACTS; not imagined excuses for genocide! Fact: Cromwell slaughtered men, women and children in captured towns. Let the reader evaluate the morality without trying to explain it away. (Sarah777 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Ok, I'll go through the points one by one. 'Conspirators' might sound pejorative to your ears, but it is not necessarily so. Organisers is blandly neutral, but it does not convey the same meaning. Organisers of what? Of a conspiracy to sieze state power, ergo...

'Protestant commuity' is by no means PC nonsense, this is how they would have described themselves. This is why I asked if you had studied this period of Irish history, as you do not seem to be familiar with what was actually taking place. The political division in 1640s Ireland was explicitly religious. There were those, including a small number of Gaelic Irish, who adhered to the established Protestant state religion and those, Catholics, comprising both native Irish and Old English (that is descendants of an earlier generation of colonists) who remained Catholics in defiance of the requirments of the state. What caused the 1641 rebellion was the fear on the part of the Catholic upper classes that their position in society was being eroded by anti-Catholic government, including plantations, exclusion from public office etc.

The situation c 1640 was not one of conquest and ethnic cleansing. In so far as you can you can apply these modern ideas to 17th century Ireland, they had occurred 40 years earlier at the end of the Nine Years' War (Ireland) in Ulster. By 1641, there was a substantial Protestant, English and Scottish, colonial community in parts of Ulster and elsewhere in Ireland. You may argue, that this was a situation founded on injustice and I may agree with you, but the reality was much more complex than just natives v settlers.

Two quick facts, one Phelim O'Neill, the leader of the rebellion had actually benefitted from land grants in the Ulster Plantation. Second, his cousin Owen O'Mahoney, told the authorities of the looming rebellion because he had converted to Protestantism. The point is that what happened does not fit neatly into a modern colonial/anti-colonial framework. Another important point is that the 40 years or so prior to 1641 had been largely peaceful and relationships between planters and natives in Ulster were not actually that bad. Some evidence of this is that Phelim O'Neill took Charlemont fort by knocking on the door and asking to join them for dinner before taking the garrison prisoner. The point is that as a local landowner, though a Gael and a Catholic, he had a friendly enough relationship with the garrison to allow him to do this.

The point about paranoia and fear is that it caused the rebellion in 1641 to get out of control. What Phelim O'Neill and co were looking for was actually pretty limited, but fear on all sides escalated the situation. There actually was not a Catholic plot aimed at a 'general massacre' of all Protestants. There was also no plan on the government's side to 'extirpate the Catholic religion and the Irish nation', as Richard Bellings put it. The point is that once violence broke out, everyone assumed the worst. Cromwell's invasion 8 years later is a different matter, by then, certainly, Catholics had something to be afraid of and they knew it.

Re the debate about Cromwell and genocide, I have already been in and out of this debate a number of times on wikipedia. But basically, if you define genocide as the deliberate or attempted destruction of an ethnic or religious group, Cromwell did not do this. This is why I asked if you had studied this period. Are you familiar with the events that you are arguing about? Cromwell was in Ireland for nine months, from 1649-1650. In this time he took two towns by storm and massacred their garrisons. You can read the ins and outs of these at Siege of Drogheda and Sack of Wexford. These were horrific events, but they do not count as genocide. For genocide, Cromwell would have had to have sought out and massacred all the Irish Catolics he could find. This did not happen. At such places as New Ross, Clonmel and Kilkenny, he negotiated surrenders and respected the terms he had negotiated.

I'm perfectly prepared to discuss content issues, but I'm not prepare to accept re-interpretations of the text when it is not based on knowledge of the events in question.

Jdorney 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You assume that what you "accept" or not is the determining factor here; you don't "own" Wiki articles. Your continued suggestion that I don't know the history of the period is rather irritating coming from someone who can't define the word "conspiracy".

Chambers dictionary - conspiracy: "1. the act of plotting in secret. 2 a plot"

Chambers dictionary - plot: "1 a secret plan, especially one laid jointly with others, for contriving something illegal or evil; a conspiracy."

And the rest of your reasoning is similarly flawed. (Sarah777 19:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

If you feel conspiracy is such a big deal, Ican live with 'organisers of the rebellion'. As for the rest, it's a simple question Sarah, and not an insult. Do you know much about the history of the period? Yes or no. Not that many people do and in fact academics have only recently researched it to the extent that it has become clear at all. I studied this period at undergraduate and MA levels, and I have written many of the WP articles on this period of Irish history. You do not seem to be at all familiar with the issues here, that's all. Jdorney 22:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY

This user is anti-Wikianglocentricanarianism

Ok, fine. But can we discuss the remaining issues on the talk pages before further changes? Cheers. Its John btw, Slan

OK John, that was what I was going to do; but I'm studying for the debate right now! (Sarah777 18:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Popcorn Moment

Hi Sarah,

Just dropped by to say how enjoyable it is to see you get raked over the coals with this RFC thing. I'd say this has scuppered any chance at realising your dreams of authority and power, a shining era of limitless trolling and overruling reduced to ashes.

Sic semper beluarum!

I should really drop by and leave a comment, or log in and reveal my true identity. Or have I done that already...

The preceding comment was added by SmuglyStClair (89.100.43.141)

Never say never smugly; my campaign for adminship is only beginning. May I depend on your support? I guess you may well be one of the RFC folk - y'know, trying to goad me a bit. But I'm basically ungoadable. (Sarah777 17:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

-- 'ungoadable' eh? (another made up word). You seem to be quite cowed on the RFC page. Never underestimate the power of self delusion, I suppose.

As I say, ungoadable. That upsetting you a wee bit, eh?! (Sarah777 18:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

It's not anything to get upset about, really. Your chronic misuse of the English language is, however. Here's hoping for a NARU for Sarah777!

Still ungoadable! (Sarah777 21:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

Still illiterate, too! The preceding comment was added by SmuglyStClair (89.100.43.141)

I'd prefer to call it a higher form of literacy. (Sarah777 20:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Sarah777 prefers made up words to those in the OED. This is a higher form of literacy? Why is this person an editor? Why?

I notice that trollish edits from the house of Sarah777 are down by 90% - surely a sign of being goaded into silence? Oh well!

The preceding comment was added by SmuglyStClair (89.100.43.141)

Never made a trollish edit before, why start now? (Sarah777 23:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Bias

Sarah, as predicted, someone is dropping by with WP:SOMETHINGOROTHER. Have you seen Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus? Also, see Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#New_guidelines. I really want a WP:NOT on this. 15:1 arguments of the kind we've heard on the BI page should be irrelevant. We could maybe work together on drafting a decent wording? (Heal wounds?) See, we are on the same side after all. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sony, I have absolutely no wish to quarrel with you; fact is we go weeks in perfect peace until a certain subject comes up. My beef with you (apart from the referrals etcetera) is you don't accept that a) I act in good faith and b) genuinely hold a different viewpoint and c) seek to remove what I think is anti-"Irish" (for want of a better term) pov - not impose "pro-Irish" or "extreme Republican propaganda". You may feel I am not taking this seriously - I certainly am; I find it exhausting - and I am not easy to exhaust! Regards (Sarah777 23:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, first off, the RfC is not because a) I don't believe that you act in good faith or b) genuinely hold a different viewpoint or c) seek to remove what you think is anti-"Irish" (for want of a better term) pov. The RfC is about the manner in which you conduct yourself in the pursuit of these genuinely positive ambitions. I believe we do share a lot of the same perspective (although we do differ quite often on details). And I am certainly in agreement with you regarding point c). However, as I wrote to you, here and here (and to Gold, here), abuse and incivility is not the way to go, if for no other reason than it being counterproductive. I am not conducting a "campaign" against you (as you seem to believe), and neither is anyone else (I believe). There is genuine concern over you conduct. I hope you can see that. Other than that, I, speaking personally, and in all honesty, really like you. I opened the RfC because I reached the end of my tether, and felt that others had too, with your abusive style (incidentally, the straw that broke the camels back, in the truest sense of the phrase, was the parroting here that followed the string of provocations when I came back after last weekend.) --sony-youth^pléigh 00:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Parroting? I don't get it. I thought that I made a valid point. And of course I know I can be a tad abrasive betimes but no more than many of those signing the RfC...which is rather annoying. (Sarah777 00:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Do you mean these comments? I'm sorry, I don't see the incivility. Once again, can I remind you, that there is no "campaign" against you, only genuine concerns, by genuine editors. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that response tells me all I really need to know about where you are coming from Sony. Thanks. (Sarah777 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Good. Then you realise that I (and others) mean only genuine concern for you. I left a message on my talk page for you (and Mark). --sony-youth^pléigh 08:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Lo2u

Hi Sarah. Thanks for the reply. It would be good if we could find a solution to this - all I've ever wanted is to see some sort of moderation in the way discussion was conducted. It's hardly important here but the RfC was in my view necessary. That said I can see you're a good, hardworking editor. I don't want to see you blocked or otherwise punished. I intended my terms as a peaceful resolution - a mechanism for preventing incivility as well as dealing with any that arises and not as a punishment but I suggest you contact Sony, who may understandably not wish to be part of this, and if he's agreeably Swatjester might agree to act as a neutral party, who need only become involved if any future conflict should arise. Best. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Hello Again

Hi there Sarah! Again, my sincere apologies for not getting back to you right away. I've been on holiday and with limited internet accessibility. I'd be happy to help you out to the best of my abilities, so my first question is if there is still a problem, as I've been away for a bit? If so, just let me know how I can help, and if not, I'm glad things worked out! If you ever find yourself in a bit of a situation again, please feel free to drop me a line, as I'd love to help however I can, but a fellow countryman (or I suppose a countrywoman in your two cases, hehe) Alison is much more active than I and is someone who I'm sure would be willing to help you out. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. I'd be glad to help out in whatever way I can. If there's anything I can do, just leave a message on my talk page! - Alison ☺ 20:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Alison. So far everything is fine; I guess Wiki is more of a "community" than this cynic thought! Regards (Sarah777 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

The Quiet Life

Thanks Sarah, agree, I like the quiet life! Gold♥ 20:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777, you have probably guessed it by now, about easy life;). I did put something on that page. It is my opinion as well as I can verbalise it, and this is the response that I got back from one of the protagonists [[2]]. What can I say. Gold♥ 23:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to say anything Gold. I appreciate your friendship and don't expect you to fight my battles and take flak for me. I can handle swagger - it's comes from being a farm girl!! You can defend yourself too when the need arises I can see...Anyway... it's great to see you back; we just gotta treat all the hassle like background noise and keep on truckin'. - Sarah777 23:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw...did you see what happened to User:One Night In Hackney? Zap...gone. Chilling stuff. (Sarah777 23:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

An really excellent editor, I liked his neutral style. I don't know the detail, but I guess he irritated pov-pushers on both sides. Sometimes it's hard to win - yeah, the quite life. Actually the BI talk page taught me a few insights about that. Gold♥ 00:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hackney got a 24-hour block for alleged incivility. He's left now (just got an email) and that is a loss to the project, IMO - Alison ☺ 01:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rowan Gillespie

Hi Sarah. I'm certainly no expert on RG but he has a fairly comprehensive website so I'll try to do a stub on him later. All the best. Eoin. Ekilfeather 10:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarah - Rowan Gillespie article is up. Faily much just a cog of his website. I don't have access to the Irish Times website - so you might want to add a bit about his Famine Series work. All the best, Eoin. Ekilfeather 09:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I see you found it already - thanks for the cleanup. E.

Great stub E - and you managed it all in one edit - I tend to rush them and then have to go back to several times to clean up the mess. Bad habits ingrained.

I don't have a sub to the IT myself; but as you can see Rowan got some good coverage and reviews in the Canadian press and the Hamilton paper gave a good description, though I couldn't find a photo (couldn't use it on Wiki anyway and visiting Toronto to take a snap would be fine - if I didn't have to pay! (Sarah777 11:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks

Thanks for that, will bear it in mind. Kind Regards--Domer48 11:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your closer to the truth re name than you know? Thanks again --Domer48 19:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Mount Temple

Naughty wasn't my intention. Having a lenghtly explanation with three dablinks at the top of an article (like here) seemed a bit abusive, that's why I switched to {{otheruses}} with Temple as a target. Maybe a Mount Temple (disambiguation) with just the four articles would be an even better solution, eventually with Mount Temple made a redirect to the dabpage, and the current content moved to Mount Temple (Alberta). Cheers. --Qyd 13:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops

What was that advice again?--Domer48 19:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It was along the lines of "don't light a match to peer into your petrol tank"! I've looked at the issue and posted a summary on the Famine talkpage; I think both yourself and Mark stopped just short of 3RR. (Sarah777 20:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks Sarah777, what more can I say, tears in my eyes, and a stich in my side! Regards --Domer48 20:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Shanganagh House

The National Inventory of Architectural Heritage's opinion that: Much of the site is covered by residential development seems to just about cover it, i.e. the original location is spoiled by encroaching developement. I haven't seen the house myself, but I'll take their word for it.

Did they not mention Council Housing?! (Sarah777 00:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Dear Sarah

You have an e-mail (if the wiki e-mail worked)! Cheers, Iamunknown 03:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Got it. I'll keep the toys in the pram; though as always reserving the right to self-defence. I'm doing some serious training for WP:DAYG; but you know what they say about leopards, spots and the Latin temperament! (Sarah777 08:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

*sigh* now it is re-deleted. I hope you had a chance to look at things. --Iamunknown 14:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

3RR

No, I have made one revert. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Now its two - when you posted to my talk page, it was one. Check the timestamps. Just to note - the 1943/44 government of Britain was not the same as the 1845/50 one, for fairly obvious reasons. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well - you can either check the history (and see some edits and two reverts); or file a 3RR and have an admin point out its edits plus two reverts. Your choice. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pondering my options. (Sarah777 11:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Boyle, County Roscommon; Saggart; Oranmore; Malahide; Merrion Square; Baldoyle; Ailesbury Road; Sandymount; Granard; Ballsbridge; Royal Canal of Ireland; Carrickmacross; Portmarnock; Merrion Road; Tyrrellspass; Ballaghaderreen; Clonskeagh; Stranorlar; Kinnegad

Cleanup: Clane; Killala; Templeogue
Merge: Claremont Road, Leytonstone; Shannon Airport; Irish breakfast
Add Sources: Ballinamore; Ballinrobe; Oola
Wikify: Portrane; Dunboyne; Bernadette Devlin McAliskey
Expand: Luke Kelly; Princess Margaret Road; Southside (Dublin)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Campaign Against Me

Sarah777/Eoghan777

Kindly refrain from making derogatory statements about this IP address on other user pages.

I see you were goaded into staying away from the Shankill page, getting other users to do your dirty work is a bit weak, is it not?

Remember, if I want to change something on WP, I can. If you want to change something, you can. No level of edit count or whatever passes for karma in your little world alters this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.51.78 (talk • contribs)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.....................(Sarah777 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Are you asleep Sarah/Eoghan - or are you bored? If you're bored, why do you troll?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.51.78 (talk • contribs)

Are you asleep? Must be the stoopidist question known to humanity! (Sarah777 07:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

Now, just one more time

What was that advice again, call me thick or what? Regards --Domer48 21:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh no. I'll take a look. (You should link to your 3RR's - think of all the time you'd save me)! (Sarah777 22:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Is it three strikes and your out? On the 3rr, one was dismissed and the other is just sitting there. It was definitely a case of "premature accusations," now there is a defence? Take care, Regards --Domer48 22:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I’m the essence of calmness… I think the moment has passed. Regards --Domer48 22:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'd prefer the term "preemptive edits" - you know - you were trying to save the other guy from committing 3RR by getting there first. Being such a caring editor and all that. (Sarah777 22:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Expiring protection

I saw your message on Alison's talk page. I'm not sure how much she'll be online much so I'll respond for you.

According the log of Northern Ireland, as you can see here, the page was semi-protected at 18:40, June 21. In the log, it says that the expiring date was 18:40, June 28; a week of semi-protection. That's how the user who removed the tag knew that the page's semi-protection had expired. Acalamari 23:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Acalamari. Regards (Sarah777 23:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

You're welcome. :) Glad to help. Acalamari 23:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

~~Unspecified source for Image:IMG_ElphinChurch1697.jpg~~
Thanks for uploading Image:IMG_ElphinChurch1697.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 09:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Mistag ShakespeareFan00 09:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhhhgh!

What part of

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.

If this is not legally possible:

I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

do you not understand you silly..... bot? (Sarah777 09:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

Ok, this made me laugh out loud! We love you, Sarah!! :) - Alison ☺ 10:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Irish Famine

Hi Sarah, would you like to review the recent edits to the Article? Would value your opinion? Kind Regards --Domer48 19:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To late, bad faith edits have started (in my opinion) again. --Domer48 20:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits myself; sometimes paraphrasing is clearer than direct quotation, as Mark has pointed out. I think your new references are sound. I'm unclear what, exactly, the difference between your version and the reverted version (by Mark Thomas) is. I would be concerned if other editors were joining up to break the 3RR rule in spirit - so perhaps you'd explain why you think your text is being reverted (the commentary supplied is a bit opaque). (Sarah777 20:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks again for the advice and support, it is appreciated. Regards --Domer48 14:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I used some of the treatment you were getting in a bit of a rant, hope you do not mind. Was reading over the discussions, and went of on one! C ye regards --Domer48 17:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:IMG_ElphinChurch1697.jpg

Apparent mistag, Suggest you indicate your are the photographer in the image summary. Apologies ShakespeareFan00 09:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, mistagged. The infobox is clear. By the way Great Images :) ShakespeareFan00 15:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you'd done it with "Image:IMG PostBrandingAnyone.jpg" as well. Now I'm just confused! My normal state. Sadly. (Sarah777 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

NEUTRALITY

This user is anti-Wikianglocentricanarianism

Ports and harbours and port cities

Hi. It is clear that the entire set of Category:Ports and harbors is for articles whose content is on port facilities (infrastructure) and harbours while the set of Category:Port cities is for cities (and towns) that have ports. As I am doing with all other countries, I am straightening out relevant articles so they go into the right category of the two available. I expect that most of the Ireland articles will end up in the 'Port cities' category. Doing so does not make the entity a 'city' so no harm is done therein. Thanks. Hmains 21:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmm.....OK. It certainly needs cleaning up but you should maybe write a little text to explain what should go in the different categories. Otherwise every time you assign a wee town to a category that seems to imply "City" you'll spark an edit war! (Sarah777 08:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

Others are also interested in a bigger question involved. Please see Category talk:Port cities for a discussion and my comments. Thanks. Hmains 02:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello there!

If you've already been notified, I apologize; if not, please note that a certain thread at ANI is relevant. Cheers, Iamunknown 20:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see you found the Vienesse biscuits Elinor left for me on my talk page! Delicious, aren't they? :D I'll let her know you like them! --Iamunknown 00:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Notification of ArbCom case

Hey Sarah.. since it looks like with regards to the ongoing issue, nothing will be solved until ArbCom gets involved, I have created an ArbCom case about the ongoing issues with Great Irish Famine and its editors. I do agree with a great many of your points leading up to this point, but I'd like to suggest that you remain WP:CIVIL during this, a cool head makes your view easier to see, an incivil one obscures your point. SirFozzie 13:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As if I'd ever be uncivil!! Now I have no idea what an ArbCom thingy is...so..do I have to say anything? (Sarah777 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

Sorry Sarah, I dragged you into this! I will raise it when it kicks off. Thanks for all the help and advice. Want to get this sorted once and for all, for myself. Was going over Users contributions again, and I get so …. Biting my lip. Thanks again, Regards --Domer48 20:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC) P.S you should put together a case yourself, only do not go about it the way I did! I will live and learn.

No Prob Domer! But I do think this is way OTT. I really have no interest in putting a case together unless I need to in extremis, for self-defence. (Sarah777 21:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC))

Refugees of Iraq

Fourth of July greetings from the Northeast of the US, land of many people with heritage in Ireland. Re the Refugees, the Invasion and the "War on Terror", isn't it helpful for readers to see that the "WOT" and the Invasion triggered a huge and tragic refugee crisis? Regards, Dogru144 14:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What?! "Isn't it helpful for readers to see that the "WOT" and the Invasion triggered a huge and tragic refugee crisis?" Doubtless it is. But have I been disputing this?? Happy Fourth, btw! (Sarah777 21:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

User:Andrwsc

While you are considering this I'd like your views on the input of the Admin User:Andrwsc. He seems to side invariably with the Unionist pov. As Alison has done in the Famine article should he not cease to partake as an Admin while he is manifestly also acting as a disputant? He is also becoming involved in an edit war on the "Symbols" [3] section of the NI article. (Sarah777 21:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

The problematic "the"

Hi there Sarah777. Just noticed a couple of minor things that are silly issues that I can clearly see how they happened. On the articles Monamolin and Oulart there was a strange opening sentence. Basically it ended with "in the Ireland." As you can see the "the" shouldn't be there as "the Ireland" makes no sense. However I perfectly understand how it happened as you were thinking in your head of "the Republic of Ireland" which is correct, but that's not what is being displayed on the screen. So come on girl "catch yourself on," and keep up the good editing. :) Ben W Bell talk 08:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Seems a few of the stubs you've created recently have the same issue. Never mind the mind rot settles in and gets to us all at times. Ben W Bell talk 08:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ben, you know how this happens! I type "the Republic of Ireland|Ireland" - then link it and it appears as the Ireland. I assure it is not part of some devious plot to undermine the Wiki!! (Sarah777 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Yes as mentioned above I know exactly how this has happened. I don't believe it is an attempt to undermine the Wiki. I believe it's a simple typing mistake because the brain is thinking "the Republic of Ireland". I've done it myself. I was actually attempting to make light of the situation above, not having a go in any way, sorry if it came across in a different way. Ben W Bell talk 09:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ben!!!!!!!!!!!!! You misread me - I was explaining what happens and the last remark was a silly JOKE! I wasn't even remotely offended, not even the tiniest, most minuscule, most infinitely minute little bit -:) I find it near impossible to get cross with you, of all people...

(Sarah777 09:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

See this is where the medium of the internet doesn't work for communication. Text doesn't convey emotion very well and misunderstandings happen. Keep up the good work or I'll block you. That was a joke as you know. Maybe. Possibly. Hopefully. I'll get me coat. Ben W Bell talk 09:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL - I'm a bit sensitive about "block" jokes right now! Regards (Sarah777 10:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Sure Thing

I will look at it when I get home tonight (I'm just leaving work now, 6:00 PM US). Generally, one shouldn't use the tools in edit conflicts one is already involved in. I'll need to see more specifically what's happening, though. I don't want to say anything more till I look at the situation/ (Signing) SirFozzie 22:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just looked at the history of the NI page; the article had been locked to prevent edit-warring and the status quo was "no flag" in the infobox. Having argued for the flag in the talk pages he here -

Revision as of 16:46, June 28, 2007 (edit) (undo)

Andrwsc (Talk | contribs)

pull infobox out into separate page as per discussion)

He effectively unlocked the box, inserted the flag and has now locked the box again, this time with the flag in place. This behaviour will have to be taken up at the highest level, unless you can see something I'm missing. regards (Sarah777 22:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

I'm looking at it.. but as I said on Domer's page. I am busier than a one legged man in a butt-kickin contest (to use a colorful phrase). I apologize for the delay, I will try to move forward with that ASAP. I would suggest that if you have evidence for the ArbCase, that you add it to the evidence section, in the same way. Concise and factual, with links to back things up. ArbCom likes that! SirFozzie 17:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Images on Wikimedia Commons

Hello Sarah, you did a good job uploading a lot of images of Ireland to this Wikipedia. But it is preferred to upload your images to Wikimedia Commons. PD (Public Domain) images are also welcome there. The big advantage of Commons is that images could simply be used on other Wikipedia projects, without having them uploaded on each project separately. I am now working on the Dutch Wikipedia on articles about Ireland. You take good documentary pictures that I want to use on these articles, but I cannot use them because they're not available on Commons. Do you want to think about uploading your images on Wikimedia Commons? Best regards, Arafi78 11:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Arafi - is there anyway you can move them to commons? I was waiting for some IT solution so I could move the lot in a Big Bang sort of way! My upload speed is painfully slow; I can boil the kettle and get a cuppa while waiting for an upload to complete. Especially since I went 10 magapixel! (I noticed your huge amount of work on the Dutch translations; good stuff). (Sarah777 12:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

I moved already two of your pictures to Commons. And I will do so when I see interesting pictures that I want to use on the Dutch Wikipedia. I don't know of any IT solutions to move all your images to Commons. My question was either to ask you if you can upload your next images to Commons, instead of to the English Wikipedia. When on Commons they can also be used on the English Wikipedia, as they can on the Dutch, the French, the German, ... Best regards, Arafi78 18:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Final warning for breach of WP:SOMETHINGOROTHER :)

I get that - in fact, if I'm coming across as a prick, let me know. I'd like to keep things calm too. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really Sony, I just felt we were both starting to heat up a bit! (Sarah777 16:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Ah - chemistry ... if only we could find a good use for it!! --sony-youth^pléigh 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:IMG Cbridge1946.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:IMG Castlebridge1946.jpg. The copy called Image:IMG Castlebridge1946.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 01:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

you have not upset or annoyed anyone - Heck, that's a bit of a disappointment. Dunno how the image duplication thingy happened; but it's a cute brickworks! I've noticed that the best way to motivate some local to write about their village is to put a really naff photo in! (This probably violates some policy like WP:NAFFPICS).

So, there is some more RcF fodder for all you collectors out there! (Sarah777 10:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC))

Lots of Irish images

Hay (it's Summer), you have been busy taking photos (!), but why several uploads of the same images with different names? You will see I removed the postbox images, actually Wall box, from An Post as it really does not enhance the article in any way and there is no reference in the text to the post boxes used by them. It is an article about the company. Hope you don't mind. If you have a full image of an Irish pre-1922 wall box I would suggest you add it to the gallery in that page. Actually the Wall box article need some expansion, similarly to Pillar box that I recently worked on with another editor. ww2censor 16:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi unsigned person. Same images with different names?? Surely not?! (Sarah777 14:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

Oops, forgot to sign (you can always see who edited from the "diff" view) - no, the images are not the same my error, but I see you used a better An Post branding photo, though I think you make the image sizes too large. Remember there are also users with small screens and low resolution on which large images make the page layout unwieldy. Cheers & signed !! ww2censor 16:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to be able to read the new branding! Anyway, smallen them if you wish. Regards (Sarah777 18:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

Understood, but in that case you might want to venture out and take another close up photo, or crop an existing one. Cheers ww2censor 18:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Check this:[4] - I think you are a WikiElf with WikiGnomish tendencies whereas I'm a WikiFairy with WikiOgrish traits sprinkled with a soupçon of Elfin Gnomery.

(Sarah777 18:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

Let's just forget having any discussion if you are going to start name calling. I gave you a constructive suggestion and justified an image removal but you take offence. I did not force you to change the new image size, I suggested a closeup would serve the objective better. I did not change it myself as I though discussion would be the polite way; remember consensus or agreement. You probably also don't realise, that in noticing your recent many uploaded images, I appreciate many of the photos you take and put online, but so be it. In future I will just make the changes I think appropriate and not bother with you or your WikiFairyness. ww2censor 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Holy sheet! I didn't take offence...I was joking. But you change as you see fit and don't take any offence if I revert any bad edits I come across - my watchlist is humongous and I never sleep!!(Sarah777 01:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Flowers

Sarah, that is so cool that you left Gold a flower that you photographed yourself! I only left ones I found on Commons. hmm.. I think I'll go take a few pictures outside! :D --Iamunknown 20:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bit concerned about Gold - does anyone here know her; is she OK? (Sarah777 22:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

No and no. :\ I sent off an e-mail to Alison, but she's on vacation. I wish I had Gold's contact info. --Iamunknown 00:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have really had it tough this last few years. Between bankruptcy, and other issues, "black dogs" are always nipping. They just got on top of me lately, and i tried so hard to keep up the bright side, even though I felt very low. And the amazing thing is none of my friends know I'm down, must tell them. Most of the time everything is bright and rosy. Will try get back editing on WP in a couple of weeks. Thanks for the concern. Gold♥ 12:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

- From Sarah

Thanks Sarah, feeling sharp and fit. Gold♥ 21:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL, always liked flowers! Gold 11:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Greystones marina neutrality etc...

Just for your information, there's a nice debate you may like to get involved in at Talk:Greystones. Hope you can help me a bit!! Schcambo 11:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

These disputes can turn nasty! I am actually slightly confused as to what the issue is; is there any definitive breakdown of how many objectors were from Greystones bar the opinions of Wicklow County Council folk? Surely they have addresses? Must be easy to establish the facts?? (Sarah777 20:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC))

Well you know I'm sure there are addresses somewhere, it's just that we'll never probably get to see them! I think the issue is not that that guy is questioning what the Irish Times reported or what the WCC spokesperson says, it's that he's basically saying that WCC are lying about the whole thing because they're inefficient and corrupt etc., and while I don't doubt that they're very inefficient (having done some work experience there a few years ago!), as a public body they couldn't lie, or some other interested party would have picked them up on it and we all would have heard about it. Schcambo 21:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree on both counts: WCC like all Local Authorities in Ireland (everywhere?) are models of inefficiency - but the idea that they are actually telling lies is remote, to say the least. (Sarah777 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks SaraH

Thanks Sarah, I will heed your advice. Kind Regards--Domer48 20:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with Wikipedia

Sarah

By complete coincidence, an American friend who is visiting Ireland with her mum next month asked me what is the pension age in Ireland, and specifically will her 60-year-old mum be entitled to free travel? I know in Scotland she would but was unsure of the situation there. If you're able to help or direct me to someone who can, please reply here. If not, just revert this. Best wishes, --John 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

John

Check, [Free Travel], I think you must be 66, unless you qualify under a fairly long list of exceptions. "Countries with which Ireland has a Bilateral Social Security Agreement" include the United States - so it depends on the small print; but I thibk this site will anwer your questions.

Regards (Sarah777 20:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, that's useful. --John 21:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And you could learn to say An Roinn Gnóthaí Sóisialacha agus Teaghlaigh - not many folk kick off their Irish lessons with that one! (Sarah777 21:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Hah! Believe it or not I would love to speak Irish. One day I really will get round to it. --John 21:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

POWs

In June 1971 Reginald Maudling, the Conservative British Home Secretary, announced that the British government was now "at war with the IRA." So POWs they must have been.GH 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that drug dealers are PoW's because of the 'war on drugs' ? --Gibnews 11:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell ya what, when they send 1000's of British Army and SAS soldiers in to murder them then we can take the "war on drugs" solgan a bit more serious?--Vintagekits 11:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the news on Afghanistan. --Gibnews

Hi Gibnews - I've replied to that somewhere already; the Drug Barons consider themselves to be business men, not soldiers! (Sarah777 12:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Of course, if it's Taliban are involved, they are definitely POWs, that is if POWs are actually taken rather than killed. I believe the Americans don't recognise the Geneva Convention as applying to their activities in Afghanistan; and the Taliban probably never even heard of it. That would still make captives on either side POWs, regardless of what either side described them as. (Sarah777 22:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for pulling me up

"Unfortunately for your POV-pushing endeavours.." is not up to my usual standard of civility, you're right. See WP:SPADE though. I can only assume good faith to a certain point, being a human being. --John 22:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As for my user name, see Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. --John 23:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted! I checked "Sarah" when I was starting but 'tis taken by a two-year-old who does a lot of editing. So I guess a usurpation is out of the question. Mind as she only took it in Sept '05 it could itself have been a usurpation. How else could "Sarah" be unwanted for so long!! (Sarah777 11:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

That's a shame then as I'd say you missed out on it; it was usurped fairly recently by a friend of mine. See User:Sarah. --John 15:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. September 2005 - that's her!! I didn't start till last July 15th - hey! Tomorrow's my Wiki BIRTHDAY!!(Sarah777 17:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Happy wikibirthday Sarah, this one's on me. Slan!

Eire - most corrupt country in Europe?

Aren't I right in thinking that Southern Ireland is one of the most corrupt countries in Europe? On par with Italy. Biofoundationsoflanguage 06:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Biofuelingbadlanguage - incorrect. You should perhaps read some independent surveys (rather than the British press) and you'll see that Eire comes ahead of the UK by almost any measurement of good things and behind the UK on most measurements of bad things. Unlike your "democracy" we allow extensive tribunals to investigate wrongdoing; not adopt the UK practice as most recently demonstrated in the case of the bribes paid to the Saudi despots. Also, isn't it some appalling breach of Wiki etiquette to be airing your anti-Irishness on Gib's page? Come over to my place. Or I'll go to yours. (Sarah777 13:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

membership just like this???

No actually membership like this. Cheers ww2censor 19:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks WW; without you to steer me through the Wiki Jungle and keep me confined to the straight and narrow, I'd be lost!

Can I do assessments now?? Officially , that is? I can't even look at an Irish article these days without going to the talk page to see if it's tagged. Obsessive compulsive Virgo thingy. (Sarah777 21:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Yeah, yeah!! Obsessive compulsive Virgo thingy. LOL! I don't know but as I posted earlier, I have now posted on the assessment topic here but I don't expect a reply for a day or so. Maybe when User:Alison returns from Ireland she will get involved. Cheers ww2censor 22:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Other's comments

Hello Sarah. I, personally, don't really mind, but you should really ask other editors before copying their comments from a personal talk page to a discussion. At the very least you should inform them you have done it. Some editors get very touchy about others moving their comments. I'm not sure the reason you move my comment to Domer, but I'm guessing you see it as support for your case, or are you posting it there only to rebut it? Some clarification would be helpful. Thanks. Rockpocket 23:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Following the lead of User:John I think it is a good idea to gather all discussion of IRA Prisoners of War to the same place. Secondly, I assumed that Domer would have no objection; I would be both astonished and deeply apologetic if he did. And, yes, obviously I think your contributions to this debate help "my case"! (Sarah777 23:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

You should read WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable. Specifically "Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context... When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs." and "don't edit others' comments, including signatures... [unless] you have their permission" This edit is in clear violation and your transposition of my comment above is lacking diffs for context and my permission. Please refrain from editing others comments in future. Thanks. Rockpocket 23:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarah is quite right, she was only following my lead. Rock, you are quite right too and I apologise. I just thought that we had an interesting conversation that was entirely related to the topic, and I also didn't think Sarah would mind. You are right though that generally speaking it is a bad thing to do. Sorry. --John 00:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record John, you assessed the situation perfectly, I didn't mind. And even if I had minded I doubt I'd whine about it! (Sarah777 00:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

My understanding, John, was that you transposed an entire threaded conversation to a more suitable venue, and left a link to the new site, noting you had moved it. You also noted "I hope nobody minds my bringing the debate over here" on the new forum. That is very different from taking a single comment from a single editor in reference to another single editor and copying it to a new forum, for the apparent purposes of criticizing the content of it to a more public audience. And leaving no trail from the original comment to boot. I just think that, specifically, was a bit shabby. Rockpocket 00:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am struck by this comment by Rocket: "your transposition of my comment above is lacking diffs for context and my permission." In a recent RfC (nothing to do with Rocket), I was subject to a torrent of out-of-context quotes lifted from all manner of places including my own talk-page and others - without any permission. How was that OK? btw. I reject any allegations of shabbiness Rocket; I don't mind where you quote what I say (bar an RfC). I am not ashamed of what I've said.

Also, you use the term motherfucker on your Userpage. How kosher is that? (Sarah777 00:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

(deindent) Sarah, Wikipedia is not censored. Rockpocket has expressed a preference that you not quote him out of context in another discussion without telling him. I suggest you take note of his request, which seems a reasonable one, and leave it at that. --John 03:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, kinda not censored - I could argue that one! Surely trying to dictate what I may copy from Domer's talk-page is an attempt at censorship? I also believe the the principle of parity is an integral part of freedom of speech; to exclude my experiences with identical treatment (on a much greater scale) from this issue is wrong. We must adopt a holistic approach and root out agenda-driven compartmentalism. Bunker-think is the ruination of Wiki.

Having said all that I'll take your good advice, 'cos it's my birthday. And tomorrow the SUN beckons. Well, to be a good Wiki I'd have to concede it's beckoning right now; tomorrow I move towards it! (Sarah777 10:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

Might interest you

Hi Sarah, not long released under the Freedom of Information Act http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/misc/opbanner.pdf , don't mind the spin. Have a nice read. See ye,

Hard to say that wasn't a war!!! Clearly the BA didn't regard the Baader-Meinhof; Red Brigades; ; Drug Barons; the Corsicans or even ETA as remotely as "warlike" as the IRA campaign. (Sarah777 23:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Said it was in opperation for 37 years. This is only just released, main media have not covered it yet:( take care

Sarah, I've removed some edits, an follow on, from my talk for reason stated. Hope it's ok with you. GH 10:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a vote

I can see why you interpreted thus, but it's not a vote. I'm trying to stay clear of the argument as I wish to see my grandchildren, in time. My point anyway was slightly different - "Ireland" is not the same as "Ireland (disambig)", since the former is directly accessed by a reader typing "Ireland", whereas the latter would need someone to type "Ireland (disambig)". I realise that this is a bit obscure, but have a look at Ulysses. It's a disambig that lists many of the meanings of the word/name and enables the reader to make a precise selection. To use the voting format: Option X - "Ireland" for a disambig, "Ireland (island)" for the geographic entity, "Ireland (state)" (or "Republic of Ireland") for the current political entity, as many redirects as necessary, etc. Hope you're less confused than I sound (daft old bugger). Folks at 137 13:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Rochfortbridge FC Link

Hi Sarah777, I've added back in the link to Rochfortbridge Soccer club on the Rochfortbridge Wiki. You may have removed it during the last clean up by accident. It's not duplicated anywhere else on the article and the club does exist along with the local GAA and Youth clubs. Thanks --Wikidrone20000 12:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Sarah. Please consider WP:NPA, specifically "Comment on content, not on the contributor." with regards to the comment, "You are obviously preconditioned to give excessive deference to Imperial British Law". Feel free to opine as you wish on my edits, but leave the comments about me and/or my motivations out of it please. Thanks. Rockpocket 03:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. "Comment on content, not on the contributor.", eh?

You provide bald statements of what you believe should happen, without providing any sources to explain why what you believe is verifiable. I sense you are getting worked up again over this, Vk. If you are feeling frustrated, please take a break and come back when you have calmed down. This debate is not going anywhere, it will still be here tomorrow. Getting riled and suggesting people have "disgraced themselves" is not constructive to this debate. Please remember the terms of your probation. Rockpocket 21:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." - Is this another "rule" that only applies to croppies who won't lie down and "think of England!" (Sarah777 03:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Oh, sorry! I didn't ask your permission to copy this! Tut tut! (Sarah777 03:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

The alternative to that comment was to issue Vk a block. I took the decision that he would prefer an alternative and offered him that option. Vk is on a probation that is related to his behaviour, it is very difficult to address that without mentioning him. Admittedly there is the problem with NPA in that regard, but the difference is that I am not on probation and thus it is not your job to monitor my behaviour. If you think my behaviour is and issue, there are appropriate places to make that known.

I don't know that a "croppie" is, so I can't comment on that question.

I'm also not going to discuss the issue with you any more on IWNB. You obviously have your opinion and I'm not going to change that. You can consider the source an "establishment legal opinion" if you like, but no matter how much you find the content unappealing, they meet the criteria at WP:RS and WP:V and that is all the matters. There may well be scholars that find the IRA do have a claim under the conventions, but I couldn't find any. If you happen upon them, do let me know. Until then, goodbye, Sarah. Rockpocket 04:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The alternative to that comment was to issue Vk a block. Alternative implies only two options, whereas in fact there were many. I think that remark pretty much confirms my instincts re the appropriateness of Administrators becoming involved in Anglo-Irish disputes when at the core of such issues is the whole notion of spurious "legality".

Facts can be ignored in favour of "legal" fiction. So we get a British Guantanamo. Given the mass-release after the GFA, it could be argued that the prisoners were in fact hostages. Maybe we should move the debate onto that ground, as it seems common sense plays no part in here.

Take the invasion of Iraq: any POWs in British Basra? No. Just all classes of detainees being tortured and murdered, some after a "trial"; most without the legal fiction. But are they POWs? No, according to your rationale. So we have a declared war (on "terror", not on Iraq mind; 250,000 troops invaded Iraq, killed tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians, destroyed the country - and took no POWs! This whole notion of British "legality" is rubbish; and Wiki is not about peddling rubbish. (Sarah777 10:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Please do not delete my talk page comments. DrKiernan 12:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that I did. I thought I merely reverted you reversion of my contribution. (Sarah777 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

That's OK. DrKiernan 12:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a nice holiday Sarah, see you later! GH 21:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)