User talk:Sarah777/Archive 23

Adding References
Sarah

I made some changes to Tara Mine but I had some trouble getting the References section to work for me. As you are the previous editior for this page can you please take a look and see if I did it correctly. I just copied and pasted but I am wondering if all four lines are necessary? ThanksWgh001 (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Done - I hope! Sarah777 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland
I have supported the move proposed here for obvious reasons. Sarah777 (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is that then? Jack forbes (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is what?? Sarah777 (talk)
 * Sorry, I was as clear as mud there. Without putting my tuppence worth in I've been thinking about the Ireland naming discussions, and for the life of me I can't understand why it can't be Ireland(State) Ireland(Island) with Ireland being the disambiguation page. I know this has already been put forward but have yet to see a good reason not to go with it. It's always possible I've missed something. Wouldn't changing the Republic of Ireland article to just Ireland cause insurmountable problems?Jack forbes (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the case of the "foreign relations" article I don't think so - no other "Ireland" has "foreign relations". Sarah777 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you have a point there. I guess I was too busy getting my head around the naming problem to think about that. Jack forbes (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, hiding Republic of Ireland across Wikipedia, while the main article is Republic of Ireland, serves only to harden the RoI crowd. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's countered by the equal but opposite statement of:
 * IMHO, hiding the state's name, Ireland, across Wikipedia, and continuing to have the main article at the incorrectly named Republic of Ireland, serves only to harden the Let's use the correct name crowd.....
 * --HighKing (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's also possible. Perhaps overall, we should wait on the final results at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, before hiding or un-hiding Republic of Ireland from articles content or titles. Let's just be patient, folks. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing seems to be happening on Wp:Ireland Collaboration, apart from the occasional statement. IMO, there's a poor turn-out over on the page. I thought more editors would participate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have repeatedly pointed out the Wiki concept of "consensus" is pure euphemism. What it means is majority POV uber alles. So in the case of Ireland related articles the British have the numbers so rules or standards don't apply. Sarah777 (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And a few cross-overs either way don't alter the basic equation. Sarah777 (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange, then, that most of the participants seem to be Irish, and at least one of the British ones supports your POV... Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 23:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * May I refer you to my comment above? Also NI British folk are still British unless they self-identify otherwise. Sarah777 (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are even British folk living in Ireland (country) - none if this negates my point about "consensus = majority POV". Sarah777 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As someone who votes for and actively campaigns for Scottish Independence I self identify as Scottish, not British. I know, I have a British passport and live in Britain but that is something that for now can't be avoided. When abroad and asked my nationality or where I come from I always reply Scottish/Scots, never British/UK. My self identification does not change things, but it certainly makes me feel better. Ps, When I lived abroad people often mistook me for an Irishman, they were always put right of course. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If consensus equals majority PoV, isn't that more acceptable then consensus equaling minority PoV? GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. We should have a "rules based" system; not a mob-rule based system. Sarah777 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't force changes on those Ireland related articles (we found that out months ago, with the page movements attempt). Meanwhile, I'm growing old, waiting for decision on the WikiProject Collaboration page. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sarah. We need to have consent based on the legitimacy of the name Ireland, not a block vote consensus which seems to favour the incorrect Republic of Ireland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jeanne - and I must say you look lovely in purple. Sarah777 (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the photos on my user page where I'm wearing a purple shirt? Sarah, those two pictures were taken in 1979!!!!!I have aged somewhat since then.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you still look good! Sarah777 (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I still believe, we should wait until the Collaboration page comes to a conclusion. Then we can have changes (where required) throughout the Ireland related articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Transport in Dublin
Look what made "picture of the day"! I guess its 'cos this is Paddy's Day. Sarah777 (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right and today I wore purple instead of green! In my school, if one didn't wear green on Paddy's Day, you got pinched!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC regarding WP:TERRORIST
Hi: You're probably watching the WT:WTA talk page, but if not, I wanted to let you know I've set up an RFC to get some outside discussion there, and to encourage slightly more formal statements than our more freewheeling discussion thus far. Ray Talk 17:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Isles
Are ya sure ya wanna push the British Nationalism accusation, again? GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a simple statement of fact, not an accusation. Sarah777 (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've little concern for the content of the article. But the article's title, is a different matter. PS: Good will gesture: I've hidden the BI. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've often wondered, would people on both sides of the Sea, accept The Isles as a name for both islands? GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Any name that doesn't suggest Ireland is a colony would be better but common usage is increasingly "Britain and Ireland". Sarah777 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's kinda a cool, but don't ya mind that it has Britain first (though it's alphabetical order)? GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also much bigger - so the order matters not a jot; but the B&I name at least makes clear only part of the island group is British. Sarah777 (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) See ya tomorrow, as my 2-hours have expired. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You may ignore if you want, but Britain and Ireland IS more correct, if you go by alphabetical order. Even geographically Brtain is larger, unfortunately. 78.16.148.62 (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wrong Version
Of course ... any version is always someone's Wrong Version. Black Kite 21:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm so glad you agree with me. Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes agreed, needs protection, though I think it's a content dispute rather than actual vandalism. Black Kite 22:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But the miscreant is maintaining that:
 * If he creates a list then this current article cannot survive unless it is reworked into alphabetical order. (Which totally destroys the nature of the article).
 * He claims there is some "law" on Wiki that an overview of rivers must be in alphabetical order; not organized by any geographical principles.
 * He is damn aggressive, even worse than me. Except I'm usually right as well :)
 * Sarah777 (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Update; I think he is learning some basic stuff. Watch how he can now add a link without deleting another one. It's a bit like the breakthrough you experience when a dog learns to give you his paw:) Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Thank You
I'd rather not see anyone blocked, and I could see there was some clear baiting going on. I understand how passionate people from both extremes are on the subject, taking the opposite viewpoint as a massive insult. Just hope you'll remember there are some of us who are born in Britain, who are British, but whose sympathies might lie with Ireland. By both sides letting it drift to the extreme people like myself just get turned off. It is my parents', grandparents' and great grandparents' war, not mine. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the continued imposition continues on Wiki in 2009. Sarah777 (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I have to be honest Sarah, I don't see the 'line in the sand' on this one. I seperate, at least in my mind, British Isles and UK possession. I do think users should acknowledge that it causes offence to some Irish editors/people, then say that despit that, it is the common name and the offence is not widespread enough to really make it necessary to avoid. However, it seems people would rather pretend the term isn't offensive at all and argue it from a 'IT IS THE NAME' standpoint. Have you considered simply laying out a wiki policy argument for your side? Don't let the extreme members of my nationality drag you into nationalistic arguments, stick on wiki policy based arguments and you might win some of us round, not to mention avoid any risk of angering The Powers That Be. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 13:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked at this from all angles - I think annoying the powers that be is one of my most valuable contributions to Wiki - even if they don't realise it! Systemic bias is the curse of Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!
Hi Sarah,

Please just ignore ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! and just revert him on the BI talk page. It's the only way to deal with trolls.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise he was a troll! Sarah777 (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Dysert
Help! Could some Admin delete this page - it is replicated at Dysart, County Roscommon. Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Arles, County Laois
'''Help! (again)''' Could some Admin delete this page - it is replicated at Arless. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

B class criteria
To improve this article R363 road, here are some guidelines for the B class criteria for road articles. SriMesh | talk  01:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

British POV dispute
Anyone troubled by the dictatorship of British POV in relation to British/Irish articles might look at my proposal here. Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah, we won't get anywhere on those Ireland related naming discussions, if you continue to hold back. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ordering for Clarity
Sarah, feel free to reorder for clarity. Just the way you had just done it made it look like I was directing my comments towards you - I wasn't. I think it's clearer now - but if it's getting in the way, feel free to move it around. G'night. --HighKing (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure that you weren't commenting on me - but I couldn't recall committing the offence described! Sarah777 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it like that then? You're getting so much flak from all sides, you're forgetting who you're expecting a kick from?  :-)  --HighKing (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about flak, Sarah; I've a nice flak jacket I can lend you. If you want to see real flak go over to this page:Talk:Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. I am not to be taken seriously and must quickly descend from my Tower of Received Wisdom!! Does that not sound like a Harry Potter book title?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Dunno about that, but the Tower of Bestowed Wisdom shares a similar nudge-nudge quality that A wizards staff has a knob on the end conveys. --HighKing (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That editor who insulted my intelligence obviously got his Towers mixed up. Oh well......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Firefox implosion
Am back editing in IE 'cos my Firefox has seized up. Anyone else had that problem? The edit Wiki facility on Firefox is much better - or is there something you can add on to IE? (I'm pretty hopeless at the technical stuff). Sarah777 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What "edit wiki" facility? Did you upgrade firefox recently?  Perhaps you've an extension that was broken cos of the upgrade?  --HighKing (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks as if your Greasemonkey add-on isn't working. If you go to https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/748 and click on add to Firefox you should get edWiki back. Regards --Bill Reid | (talk) 10:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bill - that seems to do the trick:) Sarah777 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just by the way; firefox seized up on me too this week - seemingly due to downloading an update. The old uninstall/reinstall + reboot however got it back on line.  Zymurgy (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Stoneybatter
Something spooky has happened to the lonk to Stoneybatter.....Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Works fine for me. RashersTierney (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's what's spooky! (Actually it works for me after a glitch:) Sarah777 (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a sentence in the article that is incomplete and incorrect. The part about 12th century Viking Dublin is inaccurate because the Vikings were defeated at the Battle of Clontarf in 1014 which effectively ended Viking rule in Dublin. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but it didn't result in their expulsion, and genocide wasn't committed on them by the Irish, so some were still there in the 12th century... Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 09:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But weren't they completely intermarried with the Irish by then? Which Irish surnames indicate a Viking origin? This is fascinating.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bastunssssson" is perhaps the best known Olde Deflyn Norse name. Sarah777 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Or Boleynsson.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually as I'm a female, I would be Boleynssdottir. P.S, I see my daughter is your featured picture today. LOL!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirteen is lucky in Italy but I'd not go so far as to name a girl Thirteen; unless she has 12 older siblings? Sarah777 (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was talking about yesterday's picture! LOL. Thank God Tatiana does not have 12 older siblings! That would entail too much sexual intercourse for my liking to arrive at that sum total. Thanks but no thanks. LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So that's what causes pregnancy?! And I thought it was getting drunk:)Sarah777 (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about alcohol being the blame; I had always heard that the hard, driving beat of rock music was responsible for most pregnancies which occured in the late 20th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And of course carrot cake. Sarah777 (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No thanks, I'll take lemon pie, coke floats and cheesecake instead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Leather trousers rule-YEAH!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here was me thinking I was a man of the world. It's amazing the things you learn on wikipedia!! Jack forbes (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, don't tell me you never knew that Tight leather trousers were aphrodisiacs!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it Jeanne. I always thought it was this type of tight leather trousers. Jack forbes (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * .I agree with you that she is the female equivalent of the Crawling King Snake. Though Perri Lister comes pretty close.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A question
Any 3RR experts out there? Is this a breach of 3RR by Midnight Blue? Sarah777 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 16:59, 18 April 2009 MidnightBlueMan (talk | contribs) m (49,401 bytes) (undo)
 * 16:58, 18 April 2009 MidnightBlueMan (talk | contribs) (49,410 bytes) (OK, I've completely removed the disputed sentence and NOT replaced it with the other disputed one. The issue is already mentioned in the lead. No need to reiterate it here.) (undo)
 * 16:54, 18 April 2009 Lucian Sunday (talk | contribs) (49,619 bytes) (Rv unreferenced back to referenced) (undo)
 * 16:48, 18 April 2009 MidnightBlueMan (talk | contribs) (49,194 bytes) (Undid revision 284628892 by Purple Arrow (talk)The reference simply does not back up the assertion: See Talk) *16:26, 18 April 2009 Purple Arrow  (talk | contribs) (49,354 bytes) (rv to pre-Sarah stable version, bring to talk first any material changes) (undo)
 * 16:24, 18 April 2009 MidnightBlueMan (talk | contribs) (49,194 bytes) (Undid revision 284626647 by MusicInTheHouse (talk)What do you mean- stable? The reference is useless.) (undo)
 * 16:12, 18 April 2009 MusicInTheHouse (talk | contribs) (49,354 bytes) (rv. sentence was stable had consensus and is referenced. This new line has none of those qualities) (undo)
 * 16:06, 18 April 2009 MidnightBlueMan (talk | contribs) (49,194 bytes) (Undid revision 284598742 by Sarah777 (talk)The disputed sentence is not adequately referenced and uses weasel words) (undo)
 * File a report on WP:3RR and have an admin decide? Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 21:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An Admin?! Have you gone mad??????? Sarah777 (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But aren't you an admin, Sarah?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good God no - I'd never join any group that would admit me, as Marx said! Sarah777 (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I say to Jehovah's Witnesses when they stop me in the street "Believe me I'm the last person you'd want in your church"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you know, Jehovah's Witnesses dislike Halloween. They don't like strangers, showing up at their door. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I sure as HELL wish they'd practise what they preach as I don't like them showing up at my door or stopping me in the street. I've me own cosy little spiritual arrangement with my parish priest who has already promised me ETERNITY. Now what more can a girl ask for?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. But did he tell you where you'd be spending eternity? Sarah777 (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I think "eternity" is an oxymoron. How can an infinity have a fixed starting point? Eh? Sarah777 (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why I'd be spending it with Jesus, Mary, all the saints, and of course himself! Please don't make me contemplate eternity, for that is surely the road which leads to madness.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, the last time I confessed to him he told my penance was not to use the Internet for a week, otherwise I would not spend eternity with him and the angels. I regret that I shall now never behold the splendour of paradise, and (sigh) "It's all too beautiful"......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment template
ww2censor (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So you have not seems this template before? I stumbled across it quite a while ago. Great to help keep talk page discussions together instead of being disjointed. Use it. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly will Ww; I like it! Sarah777 (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Portstewart
Perhaps you have some time to temper the mess at Portstewart. I'm off for a week. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Scotland
Hello Sarah. When was this referendum on Scottish independence you keep talking about at Talk:British Isles? Have I missed it? Skinsmoke (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd reckon every General Election when the Scots Nats fail to get an overall majority. (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah, even if they won a General Election it wouldn't be a mandate for independence. There would still have to be a referendum. Jack forbes (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? The UK has no written constitution. That's why Sinn Fein 1918 led to an immediate declaration of independence and a separate parliament. Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So you now concede there has never been a referendum then? From someone who is continually quoting NPOV it ill becomes you to claim justification for your assertion there has been a failed referendum by stating there have been general elections. Really, Sarah! You should know better. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a look at this Sarah. Don't for one second think the same conversations and disinformation is still not taking place. Scottish Independence is an uphill battle and I'm sure your fed up hearing me say it, we will get there. Jack forbes (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland
Howdy Sarah. You've signed the same posting twice. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To be sure to be sure I guess! Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Be on your toes, McAleese may be secretly planning re-unification with the whole United Kingdom (under the Union Jack), instead of just Northern Ireland (under the Irish flag). GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd not worry too much about that! Interesting the Scotland article manages to avoid having any Union Jack on it's infobox. Sarah777 (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor do the infoboxes of Northern Ireland, England and Wales. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody wants to claim the flag of the British State, eh? (I don't blame them really:) Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, please, please don't! Jack forbes (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch out for Bembicini! Sarah777 (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) It's OK folks. The British flag isn't suppose to be shown. See the Canadian provinces/territories & American states articles infoboxes (for example). GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was getting worried by those Bembicini's for a minute. Jack forbes (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm opposed to flagcruft in principle. Wiki is awash with it and it sharpens nationalist disputes almost by definition. Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But what the heck......

Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Homesick

 * Sarah, your featured picture today makes me homesick for the incomparable delights of Mexican cuisine, for which my birth state is famous. PS, the men ain't bad either!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)



Sarah - please dont remove my postings on Innishannon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryFubb (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Harry - I just saw "vibrant" and reached for the zapper. Wiki-style is a bit anal (aka encyclopedic). I shall trouble your edits as per the raven, Nevermore. Sarah777 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cathedrals template
So where exactly is this issue mentioned in WP:IMOS? A page search has found no mention of it at all. The issue has been discussed on the template talk page a number of times previously. David Underdown (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Snappy's changing of templates
Hi there. Can I request that you engage in discussion on why you reverted Snappy's changes? I reverted the changes back to the stable edit due to the fact that WP:IECOLL is still ongoing and think its unwise to mess around with the whole Ireland/ROI thing. However, for Snappy's sake could you give your own reasons? Thanks. ''' M I T H  15:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Stable version? I thought Snappy was changing the category from the pre-existing while WP:IECOLL is ongoing. Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessments
Seeing as you are doing some assessment, you might not know about the list produced daily by AlexNewArtBot for the Ireland WikiProject that records all possible Irish related articles started within the previous 24 hours. The results are useful to assess appropriate articles without searching around for them ones self. I often use it and sometimes assess all the new articles, so I hope you find it useful. ww2censor (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ww. Actually, I didn't search very much - I clicked on "unassessed" on your latest table and there they were! Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, indeed, but the bot list contains both completely untagged, unassessed and partly-assessed articles. You will find interesting articles, some of which need tagging due too lack references or other problems and even deletion because they are copyvios, as well as other improvements you might like to do. Working late, eh! I must prepare dinner soon and maybe have a beer though I was in your time zone last week. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean and I'm on to it. Tagging all as "stubs" or occasionally "starts"; unless they are not really Ireland related. Some just mention Ireland in the text. I skip those. Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do the same. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The N75
Hi Sarah, Just said I'd let you know that I changed the photo on the N75 page. The explanation is there; I hope you don't mind. Best, Seighean
 * AAAAAAGH!!! No prob. Sarah777 (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. Cheers. Seighean (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dún Aonghasa
Sarah, I moved Dún Aengus to Dún Aonghusa but it really should have been moved to Dún Aonghasa as that it the correct name as it was at the site when I visited the other day (which the photo in the article makes clear). How do I change it? Dunlavin Green (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done it - but probably not the right way. Still, it's the result that counts??? Sarah777 (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Cut and past moves are defiantly not the right way. The history of an article must be moved with the article, so that Wikipedia can prove copyright (by the incrementation changes to the page). If you have the same problem again then use WP:RM -- that is what it is there for -- assuming it is uncontroversial Sarah! --PBS (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm never controversial. Sarah777 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a million, Sorcha (and Philip). I took an almighty amount of photos over the weekend from Kilkenny so I might put in on you again if I get lost on the technical aspects. Nár lagaí Dia do lámh. Dunlavin Green (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Stub tagging
Hello Sarah Treble Seven, I don't believe we've met but are you sure Kevins Dundon and Thornton are stubs? I'm slightly clueless in this area (I misbelieved Lisa Hannigan was mid-important once) and have not checked all twenty-five in that batch but had doubts and my usual article rater has gone on holiday as I enter a rich vein of creativity and has not returned to my dismay. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  15:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Candlewicke I presume you are referring to me. Well I am back but have not become very active again yet as I seem to spend too much time assessing and not enough time writing. With the amount of prose these two articles have and being well referenced I would not class these as stubs; perhaps start or even C-class. A stub-class article is really only, at most, one or maybe two short paragraphs, with little more but some notability must be mentioned. Anything else should be given a start-class rating. I will reassess the two you mention above and leave any others for Sarah to reconsider as she thinks fit. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) I was thinking it was unusual, considering the stub contradicted the DYK nomination... sorry Sarah Three Sevens, this must appear awful rude. ;) -- can  dle &bull; wicke  02:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in the least Candlewicke! Sarah777 (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Images at 'Republic of Ireland'
Hi Sarah. Bryan Villacis is having some bother applying graphics here, Republic of Ireland, which I can't help with. Could you take a look? Thanks.RashersTierney (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All as was. He was identified as a Sock and blocked. RashersTierney (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I must say I HATE that map - it is irredeemably ugly! Sarah777 (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Malahide Castle Myths and Legends
Please refrain from changing my factual edits which provided a huge deal of information about Malahide Castle's myths/legends for locals, for whatever reason. If you feel your specific writing style is superior then I suggest you edit the body of the text and not just cut the entire thing which actually took time and research, two resources which no doubt your quick fix generation of "yoofs" are utterly unfamiliar with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.151.76 (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for calling me a youth. Apologies if I have deleted worthy material; it was not the style but the unreferenced nature of the material. I will check it out more carefully before removing it again. Sarah777 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Clontibret
Where do you reside my darling, are you up to date on the current status of the local Clontibret infrastructure, because I assure you, I am. I was born and reared in Derrynoose and studied at Huddersfield university for 6 years on the geometry and infrastructure of County Monaghan. Please refrain from changing my factual edits which provided a huge deal of information about Clontibret and the surrounding area. I'm tired of jumped up hitler anticcs stomping the dirt into the older generation like myself. I will not tolerante any of my factual edits being removed in future. I notice you have a past of removing factual edits willy-nilly and you actions are complete breach of the wikipedia trust and I am calling on you to refrain yourself.
 * Jeez! Another crusty elder. I do not have "a past of removing facts willy-nilly". I do tend to remove additions which appear dubious and are unreferenced. That now infamous quote by Maurice Jarre (not) would never have escaped my beady were it to appear on my watchlist. Sarah777 (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Enough is enough! I will not be tolerating your child like behavior. If you had even the smallest knowledge of the Clontibret local economy, you would be aware that JFE engineering is a major business and is still defying the recession and managing to still be making a substantial profit even in time of such financial hardship. I demand that you stand down and realise that you are jsut naive and ignorant to the Clontibret infrastructure. Clontibret is a class of a microcosm, largely because due to the fact that it has a major business in the local radius. Will you please grow up!!! I will not stand down to any modern day wanna-be hitler. DAS IST NICHT ZEIR GUT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFE1 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey. I'm only following (Wiki) orders. Re references etcetera. And notability. And so forth. ICH BIN EIN CLONTIBRETTER! Sarah777 (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just Feck off!!!



Cool pic
User "Fasach Nua" (blocked for 3rr) - but I found this wee gem on his/her page. It's in Georgia, USA. How would I nominate this for "Pic of the day"? Sarah777 (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder....maybe it isn't centered just so...or am I'm being too picky? Sarah777 (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the current "pic OTD"; technically perfect, a wonderful portrait of the old Charadrius-melodus. Sarah777 (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How did the photographer get that bird to remain still, me wonders?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like they nailed their toes down. 92.5.140.104 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope they didn't use super-glue! Poor wee thing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It sure doesn't look too happy about it. Go on Sarah, let the wee thing go. Jack forbes (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Will you give it to me, Sarah? I've already got two canaries who are well over five years old, plus a pidgeon. I could use another pet bird. Come on, please, pretty please, with sugar on top.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi folks - ben away for a few days R'n'R. No animal were harmed during the taking of that photograph, as we say in the movies. Sarah777 (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The times we live in
Curious exchange with our mutual friend Catterick here Talk:Cultural_relationship_between_the_Welsh_and_the_English --Snowded (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL!! Sarah777 (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * He and Tharky have gone do-lally on British Empire (not to mention my talk page).  -- Snowded  TALK 16:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it them keep trying to insert "France was invaded by aliens and were transformed into android dinosaurs hell bent on eating everything. Nevertheless The British Empire still kicked their arse and enslaved their women and children" into the text?!!! Sarah777 (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's probably at the mild end (love the idea though) -- Snowded TALK 16:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Williamstown Photo
Nice photo of Blackrock College. You picked a beautiful day to take it. :) --AleXd (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the weather glorious?! (In Dublin anyone). The trees make it difficult to get all the buildings in a single shot - I'd reckon about 10am on a clear midwinter day when the sun is from the southeast and the leaves are gone - preferably with a cover of frost or snow. Have your camera ready! Sarah777 (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming
The Arbcom has directed that the articles about Ireland not be moved until discussion on the correct names of the related articles is complete. Domer48's edit, which you reverted to, was in violation of this ruling.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's BS. I did not violation any ruling. Everyone knows that RoI is not the name of the State. Sarah was correct to revert you. How can our readers know that RoI is not the name of the State, if you keep removing the information. That is a violation of our policies, WP:NPOV is a corner stone. Consensus does not and never has overuled policy. The current text on the RoI is a POV fork and should be removed. P. S hi Sarah. -- Domer48 'fenian'  18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't see any article being moved; the text was merely made consistent with the subject matter. Also, re Arbcom, when are they going to come to some conclusion regarding the imposition of British pov on Ireland-related articles? The process seems to be going on forever. They classify any innovative WP:BOLD attempt to deal with British political terminology as "forking" but fail to deal with the root problem. As the British are numerically overwhealming on En:Wiki perhaps the only way to restore some WP:NPOV is by having new articles based on NPOV and leave the politically active British editors with their own set? Sarah777 (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Domer - long time etc. I noted that you were under siege and decided to lend a hand! Keep up the good work - and don't do anything I wouldn't :) Sarah777 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sound Sarah, I felt like Rosa Parks at a Klan meeting. Thanks for offering me your seat, now if I hold the driver down, you kick him in the nuts. -- Domer48 'fenian'  08:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why can there not be articles Atlantic Isles or Atlantic archipeligo. Among other things it would include the Faroe Islands which (tell me if I'm wrong) is part of the Atlantic archipeligo. It amazes me that when looking for these articles you get redirected to British isles when either of them would have far more information than the BI page. Shouldn't the BI article be redirected to either one of these? 86.162.180.245 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. But that wouldn't fulfill the emotional needs of the "British Empire" lobby. If I had enough interest to write an article about the "Celtic Fringe" or some such, most of the content (if not the entire article) would be redirected to the "British" Isles as a "fork". The WP:FORK policy as implemented by British nationalist editors is an instrument of totalitarianism. Sarah777 (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Has there ever been an article Atlantic Isles? If not, I may even consider getting myself a user name and creating one. Would they dare merge it with BI if there where information there that could not be included in that article? The article would include information on the BI's so surely there could be no argument against most if not all the BI article being merged into the new article. Or am I being too naive to think this would be allowed to happen. PS, I'm the same person as above 81.159.14.141 (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you could demonstrate a significant, verifiable difference between the Atlantic Isles and the British Isles then you could certainly make a new Atlantic Isles article without it being merged. If one is a subset of the other (i.e, the current British Isles was part of the Atlantic Isles), then it is likely the British Isles would remain a sub-article, rather than being merged across. You could try to make a case that everything should be under the Atlantic Isles title, but I doubt you would reach consensus, since the argument usually put forward is that British Isles is the most commonly used name. I offer no opinion on the merits of that. P.S. Hi Sarah, its been a while. Rockpock  e  t  00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The BI cannot be the most commonly used name when the Atlantic Isles take in more than the British Isles. Sometime this week I shall rummage through my books and visit my local library to see how much I can come up with. 81.159.14.141 (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really follow that logic. The common name issue is only germane if they are the same thing, and if they are the same thing one cannot "take in more" than the other. If they are not the same thing, then they can each have their own articles. Either way, come armed with sources and you will get a much smoother ride. Rockpock  e  t  00:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you could explain this to me. If wikipedia have two articles one of which is slightly larger (Atlantic Isles) than the other(British Isles) due to information which does not and cannot be in the smaller article, can the two articles stand together even though they are so similar? If not, which article should be redirected. We can't redirect the Atlantic Isles article to the British Isles as it would have more information and would give the impression they are the same thing, and they are not. you are right about coming armed with sources. I shall endeavour to do so. 81.159.14.141 (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By that logic we wouldn't have independent articles on the islands of Great Britain or Ireland, since both of them are smaller than their collective, The British Isles. Another example is Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia, all groups of islands within the larger Oceania. As long as it is sufficiently different, verifiable and notable we can have separate articles on both larger entities (groupings of islands) and their sub-entities (smaller sub-groupings or the individual islands). The key, in your case, is providing evidence that there is a significant difference between the British Isles and Atlantic Isles groupings. Rockpock  e  t  03:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no article named Atlantic Isles, because I won't allow it. I'm the boss. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The boss? Listen son, the day your the boss is the day wikipedia goes down the tubes. Go and get a day job. 86.165.157.100 (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry sweetheart; 'dats the way it is, see? GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop trolling. Go away and do something constructive like writing an article. Are you able to do that? 86.165.157.100 (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm merely joking around. Ask Sarah, she's familiar with my sense-of-humour. PS: You should consider creating an account & signing-in. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP is under no obligation to create an account as this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. BigDunc  Talk 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just a suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are the true standard of wikipedia then you can keep it. Someone else can create the article. 86.165.157.100 (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Party pooper. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your intervention really helped the encyclopaedia there, GoodDay. Maybe a review of WP:BITE could be helpful? Rockpock  e  t  18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is goading ip's part of his game? Even going so far as to gloat over it . I earlier said I was thinking of creating an account but do you really think I will now after he went out of his way to try and goad me? How many other ip's has he done this to I wonder. I won't post on wikipedia again. I just thought I should point out that there are some people out there you could do without. 86.148.187.138 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Sorry IP, I didn't know you were a newbie. This is one of those occasions, where my jokes 'back-fire'. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As the Beach Boys would say: "Don't Worry Baby, everything will be alright......."--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI
I assume they are talking about you and me here BigDunc  Talk 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah. Only you:) Sarah777 (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Me I am always nice to our all powerfull masters who can do no wrong ;) BigDunc  Talk 19:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No Dunc - you need some grovelling and forelock tugging lessons. Sarah777 (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I was good at that maybe your right need to go to forelock tugging lessons. Then I can kowtow with the best of them. BigDunc  Talk 19:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With the worst of them! Sarah777 (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See what I mean need them lessons bad . BigDunc  Talk 19:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't pointy-ears just lift the effin' block? It is manifestly wrong. So much so that I fear it exposes some of the "sitting-on-their-hands" brigade. Sarah777 (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop inflaming the situation by insulting SarekOfVulcan. Your objections have been noted and are being considered. Please re-read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. It's more important that we remain calm and polite to each other in stress incidents, to avoid escalating disputes.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't think there was any insult per se; merely an objective assessment of the block. It is truly, truly, truly one of the worst I have ever seen by a Wiki Admin. I will confess that I wouldn't be completely uncritical in my assessment of the Admin Community on an ongoing basis. But really? However I will be guided by your apparent wisdom and shall cease and desist from further reference to the Vulcan. Sarah777 (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Ireland article names case
Hello, Sarah777. For your information, an amendment has been proposed to the Ireland article names arbitration case. As you were a named party in that dispute, you may wish to voice your opinions on this request at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. If you have any questions, please contact myself, another clerk, or an arbitrator. Thank you. For the Committee, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 14:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy
How have ya been, Sarah. It's been awhile since we've conversed. Hope you're doing fine, sunshine. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So Sarah is sunshine. What does that make me then, GoodDay, a thunder-cloud?!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If not for you Jeanne, the winter would hold no spring, I couldn't hear a robin sing, I just wouldn't have a clue, If not for you. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Chirp, chirp, chirp". The robin is definitely singing now GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Howdy G'day - stop teasing the punters. Olivia N John an old flame?? Sarah777 (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And howdy Jeanne of course:) Sarah777 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And Rockpocket, Dunc and the IP. Did I forget anyone? Sarah777 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorcha, tar ar ais le do thoil a chúisle mo chroí! Is fada linn uainn thú. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple units of Ireland
As I was saying to Willie, Multiple units of Ireland had just got to be  the sexiest article on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, why didn't I ever encounter these multiple units when I lived in Ireland? Ah, the pity of it all. I always do manage to miss out on all the fun--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing vs misrepresenting
Re ; refers. You miss the point: I'm not complaining about you removing my text, but about replacing it with something that misrepresents what I said William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I dispute the allegation of misrepresentation. Show me proof. Sarah777 (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I did. You said "Unsupported comment by WMC removed at this point" . My comment was not unsupported - it was supported by a link readable by any admin. If you prefer, a link that you can read is . Furthermore, there is no question that my original assertion was correct - even HK admits it, which is hardly surprising, because as I've shown it is easily verified William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure...I see four blocks, you claimed three. I'm a stickler for exactitude. Sarah777 (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But not a very careful one. Look closer. There are three blocks, and one "2008-07-29T22:37:59 Ddstretch (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "HighKing (talk | contribs)" ‎ (gave specified undertaking, so no reason to continue with block)" William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Willie, don't be so anally retentive. Sarah777 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not very good at this. I'll leave you in peace. But you may like William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ! - and in return here is a tribute to a Wiki Admin Sarah777 (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And on an only-slightly-related note, Tom Smith's reaction to the second AfD on his article: http://filkertom-itom.blogspot.com/2007/08/049-wikipirates.html. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow Vulcan! You have your own song. What's the tune like? Sarah777 (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. Actually, I created that article in the first place, so I'm not the deletionist it's talking about, and if you had clicked through, you would have seen the "play now" link. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it. Brilliant last line! Sarah777 (talk) 08:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And btw, I once had nearly one hundred articles deleted in a single move, without any process, and was blocked for weeks (and nearly banned) after restoring about 10 of them? Strange, but true. Sarah777 (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your statement
As Mooretwin (who is generally on the opposite political pole to me on British/Irish issues) points out, there are compromises acceptable to reasonable editors on both sides, but Wiki appears unable to contemplate any change in the status quo.

I'm puzzled because this appears totally at odds with your comments of the last few days. You, I and Mooretwin are all in agreement that there is a compromise "acceptable to reasonable editors on both sides." This is obviously the Ireland (state) / Ireland (island) solution, right? Do you realize that Domer is among those editors who opposed this solution most robustly thereby stymieing it? Indeed his only acceptable solution is so extremely partisan that it isn't even deemed acceptable to the majority of the Irish editors! So why on earth are you campaigning on his behalf if its your belief that there is viable solution, when he is as responsible for the failure to reach compromise as anyone else? I feel you are being blinded by nationalism here. If, like me, you think there is a reasonable compromise, its time to stop supporting those on both sides who are digging their feet in and holding out for their own POV preferences. The little charade earlier this week - attempting to merge the articles on the island and the state - is as much an obstacle to reasonable progress as any British cabal. That course of action is likely to push people apart rather than bring them together and will cause even deeper entrenchment in those resisting compromise. Its time for some pragmatism: If you are serious about reaching a reasonable consensus, then stand up for that rather than lining up behind anyone waving the Irish flag. As it stands, too many editors appear interested in fighting the good fight than actually reaching a compromise. The real problem here are those individual unwilling to compromise - not any particular nationality. Rockpock e  t  02:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rock, I opposed what I think was a very bad block on Domer. I disagree with Domer on lots of things. For example, I'm obviously closer to Mooretwin on this issue; not because I especially like the formula but because it is a reasonable compromise. Both Unionists and Nationalists have difficulties for political (rather than encyclopodiac) reasons with making Ireland (the state) the primary location of the name "Ireland". Unionists because they see it as a "claim" on Northern Ireland; nationalists because the feel it "abandons" Northern Ireland and is a "Free Statist" notion. The real problem here are those individual unwilling to compromise - not any particular nationality. That is probably true; my issue I guess is that across a range of naming issues their uncompromising folk far outnumber "mine". I don't think I am blinded by nationalism, rather I'm highly sensitised to detecting nationalism of the neighbouring sort, British or American. But I accept you may disagree. (I also feel a wee bit abashed as I realise I was putting undue pressure on you to act when no other Admin else was either. On reflection, my slightly explosive sudden involvement in the issue was a gut reaction to the Domer block. I'm working on this temper issue with my personal trainer) I'm taking Collaboration lessons - you've no idea how difficult it is for an Irish editor to reconcile with the concept of "Collaboration". Sarah777 (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughtful and honest reply, Sarah. I also think it was a bad block on Domer but, my God, he makes it difficult support him. I can't really disagree with much of what you say, although another way of looking at it is that having less unreasonable folks on your side makes it easier for your to organize a united front! I honestly believe that if the Irish editors, en masse, were to push for the compromise then it would go though, because there are enough reasonable editors in the middle and on the other side that would agree. The problem is that those (unnamed) editors who continue to push for unreasonable extremes are playing right into the hands of those who want to keep the status quo. I guess I just find that really frustrating, which was why I (somewhat unfairly) brought it to your page. Rockpock  e  t  01:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * O Holy God. Another atrocious block, this time the Irish editor was MusicInTheHouse. No ****ing end to this? Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh - and there goes Mooretwin, for a month. That'll bring a solution closer. Not. Sarah777 (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You might have remembered the blocking admin (WMC) as being the very same admin that doled out my first (only?) block while breaking every rule by being an involved editor, etc. Although if MooreTwin has 10 blocks (I never knew) and hasn't learned, it's a particularly harsh lesson - especially since WMC is talking about making it indef if he edit wars within a month again...  --HighKing (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * >Unsupported comment by WMC removed at this point.......The nine times blockee is WMC.......<Sarah777 (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I despair too, but really, they are probably deserved for the sheer stupidity of it all. All that edit-warring over trivialities, two blocks and not one person bothered to even try to take it to the talk page? Moreover, that is a WP:Good Article which means its already in a very good shape and therefore is unlikely to need MOS changes. When people get involved in such short sighted, petty edit-wars its difficult to summon the energy to defend them. Like I said above, too many editors appear interested in fighting the good fight than actually reaching a compromise.  Rockpock  e  t  01:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, thanks again re my block. My Rosa Parks comment went down like a lead balloon as part of the review, I can’t remember weather it was considered uncivil or disruptive so I’ll watch my P’s and Q’s. Rock, as much as I disagree with you, and I do, if I felt you were in the right and were being unfairly treated I’d be the first one in there and you know that. Remember Alison was getting all sorts of stuff thrown at her, despite our very public disagreements I jumped in very heavy handed against her attacker and not one person mentioned my incivility on that occasion. I’ve even jumped in twice to prevent Moortwin getting blocked. That’s just the way I am, and I treat editors as people not enemies. There is not much point saying a block is bad and not doing anything about it. You had the same opportunity before on the Hunger article to act on a bad block against me, and you did the same thing as now. Regardless of the additional two blocks I’ve just had, I’d still defend you or any editor I believed to be in the right. -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But that is where you are wrong, Domer. You are essentially claiming I am "doing nothing" unless I "act": meaning I either use my tools to unblock you or abuse the blocking admin until s/he gives in. That is not going to happen for a number of reasons, not least because prior involvement absolutely precludes using the tools. Like any other editor, I can - and I did - request the blocking admin reconsider and I also strongly encouraged a review by an uninvolved admin. Unlike anyone else, I also did my best to try and stop you getting yourself in that situation by urging you not to continue along that path. You didn't to me listen then, so why do you expect me to bail you out afterwards? So I'll do you a deal: I'll canvas harder on your behalf next time you are blocked on the condition you heed my advice next I warn you that you are approaching block territory. Rockpock  e  t  00:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Domer. I won't contradict Rock's advice as I have often (but not always:) followed his advice myself. But I must admit I was chuckling at your Rosa Parks analogy! If I hadn't seen similar attempts at humour "taken down and used against me" in various RFCs etc I'd find it hard to believe that some Wikonians could be so devoid of humour. But I guess that's Americans for you. Sarah777 (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm American, don't I make you laugh, or even giggle?? Hee hee, hee, yes? no? Come on now, not all Americans are devoid of humour. If you want to see a real lack of humour, come to my village.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeanne, you must remember you've had years of re-education in Europe. Your village? In Italy?? Sarah777 (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, my village is a complete drag, even the church is boring looking, not Baroque like so many of the churches here in Sicily. The priest's house is attched to it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeanne, you seem to be mighty..eh...close to that priest! Sarah777 (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Not close enough and he's oh so cuuuuuuute. Like a wee cuddly panda bear.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)



Hey!
Dont worry about it Sarah. Its his mind set. My ould fella would call it a brainwashed West Brit or quisling! Its doesnt bother me. He's been told where to go. Card marked (again!). --Vintagekits (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK Vk. I see he was sent off with a flea in his ear (as my Dad would say:) Sarah777 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * West Brit? Quisling? I'm in good company, then - me and 92% of the electorate... Hey, Sarah - where's Vk's NPA warning for the above, by the way?  Surely your adherence to WP:NPOV doesn't mean you take sides in who you award them to?


 * It's incredible, really. ONiH can say "...whereas Bastun gave information from, well, his own ignorant and ill-informed imagination it seems.", and BigDunc gives me a WP:NPA warning for responding "ONiH, Domer, VK and BigDunc... I think we may have an ownership situation on this article."  No similar NPA warning for ONiH.  And VK can say "You are an absolute dick!" which instead of a NPA warning from Sarah, instead elicits a "Frankly, Vk, I'd reckon you are being too generous in your assessment of our friend."  Defenders of NPOV, me arse... <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun nutsaB 22:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 92% of what electorate? What are you talking about? 92% support imposing British POV on Wiki? As for a warning to Vk; I'm not a soccer referee - to me justified retaliation is...well...justified. You sought to get a vulnerable editor who opposed your pro-British POV banned. Further comment is unnecessary. Sarah777 (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hidden information
This photo of the Met Office in Glasnevin is a vast store of information. That's how photos should be uploaded! Sarah777 (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

from Talk:British_Isles
Off-topic material moved from Talk:British_Isles S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. "prior block history for that editor" I must comment on this. As a victim of a savage string of bad blocks by POV-Warrior Admins there should be some way of purging the record. Like points on your driving licence for speeding or other trivial offences. I've had one mistaken block in my history and six bad blocks by Admins who were involved in a dispute with me. Most of them are no longer Admins (or even editors), having later crashed and burned. But the effects of their actions linger. It's the quality, not the quantity of blocks that should be taken into consideration. WMC had nine blocks and is now a semi-respected Admin. I need a shot at redemption too. Sarah777 (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Three years accumulation of points, then four years on the record. Not a bad idea.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sarah. If you wish to go down that route then the reasonings behind the blocks needs to be taken into consideration. Many people have accidentally come down on the wrong side of a block for inadvertent edit warring, so the edit history needs to be taken into account, not just the quantity and length of previous blocks. Canterbury Tail   talk  19:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and btw: WMC is a semi-respected Admin is a joke! I got two of my early blocks for making a similar remark to Admins I was feuding with. WMC is clearly highly respected in certain quarters. Sarah777 (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

On the use and abuse of Block Logs, a new chapter here might be in order, just under no. 1. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  18:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I especially like this:  After all, it's all a numbers game, and three brothers alone can nullify one "expert" in a revert war without performing more than one revert. With the recent advent of blind anti-"edit-warring" ideology in the admin community, he has no chance. Sarah777 (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Colcannon 4215w.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Colcannon 4215w.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  Sandstein  20:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Surreal. Sarah777 (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

9/11
Completly agree with your comments on CT's page, doesn't help the matter when you have chest thumping yanks who are admins upholding the POV, all some are short of doing as VK said, is start screaming U S A, U S A, it is great to look at their arguments when asked to explain it, they come out with because they are what a powerful arguement. BigDunc Talk 12:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on guys, now can you see me thumping on my chest? LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarage seems to be able to do what they want on this article as he has the backing of a number of admins who have no wish to adhere to NPOV. BigDunc Talk 16:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If he keeps it up he'll be starring at ANI. Sarah777 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you honestly think anyone at ANI would give a damn it would turn into an attack on you for your pov pushing. BigDunc  Talk 16:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a minor concern. The alternative is to acquiesce in abuse of power and breach of WP:NPOV. Not really my style:) Sarah777 (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, he wants me topic blocked the nerve ;) BigDunc  Talk 16:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "I will request that you are topic blocked like all those who have come before you and failed." That's one way to keep the "consensus" to ignore WP:NPOV! Block all the folk who insist on WP:NPOV and you'll always have a majority "concensus" for your POV - "guided democracy" they call that in pro-Western dictatorships. You can almost hear the clomp, clomp, clomp of the jackboots comin' over the hill. Sarah777 (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Told you, admin back up of his edits and who is in the wrong do you reckon? Tarage the great protector of NPOV or some one else. BigDunc  Talk 17:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Do take me up on ANI. I know I'm right. The more you put me up on a pedestal, the more powerful I become. I see myself as an editor. Nothing more, nothing less. An editor should at any time welcome review. I welcome review. So go ahead and do it. The only result will be a topic ban on your part. Oh, and do keep preaching the Cabal. It amuses me. --Tarage (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Powerful? Begob! Is it me or Dunc you are addressing? Sarah777 (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Either of you. I welcome all challenges. Do your worst. --Tarage (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Got friends in high places, have you? Sarah777 (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Cabal protects me... yeah right. If you honestly think I get treated any differently than any other editor, you need to get your head checked. --Tarage (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No my silly friend. American Nationalists who share your world-view and general ignorance of the concept of WP:NPOV are ten-a-penny on En:Wiki; so when you are peddling your puerility there is no shortage of supporters. Sarah777 (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Then DO something about it. I've completely lost interest in talking to you. That is all you are, talk. "OMG he is so unfair and evil and mean and protected by this cabal". I don't care anymore. Rant anymore on the article's talk page, or my talk page, and I'll swiftly delete it. You shall have no more soapbox here. Spew your garbage elsewhere. The end. --Tarage (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you are "unfair" to me Tarage. That would be like saying that an insect that falls one's plate at a BBQ is being "unfair". You are like the runt who talks big from behind the shelter of the big boys in the gang. Sarah777 (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

American Nationalist
Dear Sarah777,

You mentioned here that "American Nationalists who share your (Tarage's) world-view and general ignorance of the concept of WP:NPOV are ten-a-penny on En:Wiki". Are you calling me an American nationalist? AdjustShift (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly not. I don't personalise these issues; I was describing a general situation. I have no interest in searching to try and discover which individual editors fit that profile. I am describing a serious problem with implementing WP:NPOV on En:Wiki when National sensitivities of the numerically strong (British and American) are involved. I'd assume you are at least as concerned as I am about this. Having said that I must say your interventions in support of Tarage (who seems to be a bit WP:OWN about the 9/11 talk-page) was ill-advised and, IMHO, could indicate an inability to clearly understand the issues at stake. Sarah777 (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your clarification, Sarah777. I'm not an American nationalist; I judge people on the basis of merit, not on the basis of where they come from. My position on the US is neutral; I'm neither anti-American nor pro-American. The consensus is to use the word "terrorist" on the 9/11 article. There is no policy on WP that says we shouldn't use the word "terrorist" anywhere on WP. AdjustShift (talk) 08:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But consensus can change if allowed, any editor who raises the issue of terrorist is immediately warned of sanctions and discussion is very rapidly archived or removed. Personal attacks are common place I have been attacked by an admin and another editor. Now every editor who raises the valid concern about NPOV are laughed off as cranks or trolls trying to push a fringe theory. You yourself defended personal attacks against me by trying to negate my warning to the editor who made them. Does WP:NPA not carry any weight on the 9/11 article? BigDunc  Talk 09:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha, hahaha... pot, meet kettle. Issuing NPA warnings to those from "the other side" while ignoring personal attacks on them from "your side" is something you're familiar with, all right. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Bastun, for a terrible second there I thought you were talking about me. Of course I realise you couldn't possibly be:) Sarah777 (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mind you, I think Dunc's summary of the problem isn't too far off the truth. (Except for the bit about you; I remain stridently neutral in these misunderstandings, kinda). Sarah777 (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * BigDunc, I didn't defend anyone against personal attack. Your "warning" was unjust. Sarah, you don't want any WP article to use the word "terrorist". But, there is consensus is to use the word on the 9/11 article. And plenty of reliable sources also call those 19 people "terrorists". You can go to Village pump (policy), and start a discussion. If you can convince the WP community to introduce a policy that forbids the use of the word "terrorist", then we can erase the word from the 9/11 article. AdjustShift (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have bookmarked that page. But I think I'd need to go into special training before launching an attempt to rid Wiki of its most deeply embedded POV. Still, maybe some day....Sarah777 (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the only way you can erase "terrorist" from the 9/11 article. But, it would be next to impossible to convince the WP community to introduce such policy. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)
A poll is up at WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And this is a slightly scary invite! Sarah777 (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome? -- Evertype·✆ 12:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not wishing to appear vulgar, but what in the world is meat puppetry. It sounds like something one shouldn't do in public.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If I emailed you and asked you to vote on something, or make some edit as a favour then you'd be my meat-puppet. That's an attractive thought, isn't it?!! Sarah777 (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds like that 1960s song, I'm Your Puppet, Baby, but I fail to recall who sang it. Anyroad, thanks for explaining meat-puppetry. My thoughts had ventured onto a totally different railroad track.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * James & Bobby Purify. ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiki is fierce educational, isn't it? Sarah777 (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ghmyrtle. That saved me a trip over to YouTube. I have that song somewhere on a compilation tape, just couldn't remember who sang it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I know where your thoughts had ventured, Jeanne. Should these guys every venture to your corner of the globe, I'm sure you would appreciate them (I made the mistake of seeing them during the Edinburgh Festival years ago, I spent most of the show aghast and cross-legged). Rockpock  e  t  02:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I prefer good, old-fashioned entertainment, not magic shows involving male genitalia. Not really my cuppa tea.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Beware of The Cabal
Look what I found at the Cabal's talkpage...Sarah777 (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Tubrid
Hi Sarah. Could you cast a cold eye over the above with a view to Wikifying. Would love to get rid of those tags but I'm prob. not the best judge of when the issues have been addressed. Also if you could add coordinates and anything else that comes to mind. Thanks in advance. RashersTierney (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not great at the coordinates thingy (help, anyone?) but I think I solved the tag problem! This article looks in good shape to me. Could do with a photo or two. Sarah777 (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sarah. Hopefully I'll get some pics. (and of nearby towns and villages) next time I'm down that neck of the woods. RashersTierney (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Autodidactyl has added coordinates and an infobox - many thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left a message. Thanks all round. The system works! RashersTierney (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
There is a copyvio purge going on, well it is not all about copyvios but a general image cleanup trying to save images. Maybe you can help out even a bit. Whiel quickly looking through some of the pages I noticed that several of the Irish road number identifiers are missing descriptions and as I have seen you doing some work on Irish roads perhaps you will know them far better than I. You will find some of them at Category:Images lacking a description under the letter M and also the letter E for Euroroutes. Maybe you recall others I have not seen. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Sarah777 (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was quick. Well now you know where to look for some extra work, if you really need any!! Thanks ww2censor (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

An Bun Beag
Hi Sarah, I was stranded for 2 hours in that storm, car too wet/steamed up/flooded to find safe directions to a B&B (and me too English to get wet). But... Do the reports say how much rain fell? Do the reports mention my landlady's story that a church/chapel was flooded in a storm around 1880 and several people drowned? Regards. Autodidactyl (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops - I just found the 1880 stuff in Derrybeg. Autodidactyl (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was curious to know how much rain fell too - can't find anything on that. The Met Eireann report at the end of the month should give the stats on the event. Must have been pretty spectacular to witness it?! Sarah777 (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't see much for first 2 hours, like sitting in a car wash with 3 people breathing on/misting up the windows of a dead car. Every inch of road and pavement surface was covered in moving layer of water, leaves, cigarette butts, rocks. The holes carved in/under/through the roads really make you think. I asked a local air traffic controller about rainfall at Donegal International Airport, 1 mile away, but it didn't rain there, they just watched in awe. So we may never know... Regards Autodidactyl (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

9/11
Dear Sarah,

I've responded on the talk page of the 9/11 article. I was busy, so I couldn't respond sooner. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your nice response. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion for the Ireland-vote ballot page
Hi, User:Evertype has mentioned to me that you suggested a sentence that appears in the draft ballot page for the "Ireland vote". I've asked that it be changed slightly but I'd like your input on it. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ballot wording
"Oppose for the reasons stated." -- stated where? You might want to elaborate a bit.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relax....that oppose is, like, sooo 10 minutes ago. Sarah777 (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your latest intro
Are you open to suggestions on stuff like sentence structure. I'm quite happy with the substantive stuff, but there are a couple of small things I think need addressing. Would you like suggestions? or should we lave well alone? Fmph (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm always open to suggestions...Sarah777 (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)