User talk:Sarah777/Archive 26

It would appear I made a mistake
You will probably be interested in my recent edit to the RfC/U I started on you. It would appear that I have made a mistake in accusing you of bias although I this was mainly due to you never explaining your actions to me that well. With your post at WP:AN/I your actions on at least this issue now make sense and I will accept you were not showing bias (eith intentionally or unintentionally). Dpmuk (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No hassle. If I had a penny for every retraction/apology I have made here I'd have the price of a bag of chips :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV - the farce at the N11 road aka Euro Route #1
This is a bit complicated so I'll try to explain:


 * (1) BHG believes that all roads articles across Wiki where there are duplicate names should be dabbed in their article title. Examples are the M1s (there are two on the island of Ireland alone) ; the English one, a major Russian one and many others.


 * (2) But the editors on British roads articles have rejected all attempts by BHG and others to dab major (or any) British roads. They insist they be given primacy of location. In many cases they are clearly primary. BHG opposes the "primacy" idea in principle.


 * (3) However on to Irish N roads; here someone moved all of them in July 2008, without any consultation, ignoring the primacy issue, from the locations at "Nx road"  to "Nx road (Ireland)" (where they had rested for over 5 years)  in support of BHG's preferred "policy".


 * (4) As there is zero chance of having BHG's "no primacy" policy being applied to major British (or American) roads then we must accept that fact and accept that primacy is decided on a case by case basis.


 * (5) However we now have an "unholy alliance" blocking any attempt to give the handful of Irish roads with clear primacy that status; in the case of BHG and her allies they want to impose on Irish roads the naming system (no primacy) that has been repeatedly rejected by the community in relation to British roads. And in this they are heavily supported by British editors who clearly believe there is no problem with giving most English roads primacy while depriving all Irish roads at the same time!


 * (6) Frankly this makes a sick joke of WP:NPOV; but for different reasons separate groups of editors keep the situation locked down. (Actually I should say English rather than British in this case as there seems to be little problem with dabbing Scottish or NI roads).


 * Sarah777 (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As I'm not sure you've read all of my statement at the RfC/U and as in my opinion some of it's got quite nasty against you (unfairly in my opinion as although I feel you've made errors of judgment which I think you need to admit to I don't agree with the stronger views) I'll reply to your points above and hopefully, at the very least, we can come to some sort of agreement even if other's can't. Anyway my thoughts on the above:
 * (1 & 2) I agree with the idea that all roads should be dabbed with very few exceptions (where one road is overwhelmingly primary e.g. I'd imagine Wall Street would probably fall into this category although we currently have no other articles on roads with that name anyway - I can't find a better example). I have not always supported disambiguating roads where a primary topic exists not because I'm British but because my reading of our policies is that where there is a primary topic it should be at the main title and I believe policy should be adhered too whatever my personal views.  Hence I feel we need to change policy first.
 * (3) I personally think your view here is where many of the problems may stem from. Just because the Irish road was at the main title for five years it doesn't automatically mean it's the primary topic.  If anything I feel that making such an assumption could by seen as systematic bias.  My reasoning is that, being an English-language encyclopedia, I suspect articles on roads in English speaking countries where more likely to have been created first, not necessary because they're the primary topic but just because we have many English speaking editors (I don't know for sure but I suspect this was even more true in the "early" days).  I got the impression that many editors that create new articles don't understand the primary topic policy and if there is already an article at the title they wish to use they simply disambiguate and don't consider things further.  In this way the Irish roads may have been at the main title for five years by default and so I feel it is a very poor argument for primacy.  If in that time there had been discussion about what article was primary then I'd agree that it would by a good indicator of primacy.
 * (4) How do you know until you try? If no else does so then at some point soon I'm going to start an RfC to try to change the primary topic policy (at least for roads).  I suspect it may be the case that many editors are applying policy at move discussions whatever their personal views on the best way forward - i.e. they are simply deciding on the issue of a primary topic rather than whether we should always disambiguate.
 * (5) I think you may be being unfair here - I think part of the issue may be that there are many major roads named Nxx road in many countries and so although the Irish road may be the primary topic it is less certain whether it is the clear primary topic required by policy. This is the reason I've yet to comment at the N11 discussion.  All indications are that the Irish road is the primary topic, however whether it is the clear primary topic is more open to debate.  As an example, by my reading of policy, if there are five roads that searchers are each wanting in 10% of searches and one that's wanted 50% of the time then the 50% road is the primary topic but not clearly primary as 50% of the time searchers want something else.  Have you notices that a lot of A roads are disambiguated despite there being English roads?  In the case of M motorways as far as I can see there are far fewer areas that use this scheme so primacy can more easily be determined.  I can see how this could be conceived as bias but it's more due their being more 'competition' for N roads than M motorways.
 * (6) This worries me. In my opinion you're too ready to assume editor's aren't adhering to WP:NPOV.  I believe I am but suspect you think otherwise.  However you have made little attempt to discuss the issue with me to see that I have reasoned views.  They may not be views you agree with but if they're understandable you should be able to see that I am trying to adhere to WP:NPOV.  I have now done this with you now I've finally got where you're coming from.  Many other editors may be the same if you tried discussing it with them rather than simply accusing them of stuff, getting their back up and then being unwilling to discuss things.
 * I don't know how many 'British' editors feel similarly to the above - I suspect some of them do and if you gave them the chance I'm sure you could get on with them and reach consensus by reasonable discussion. I am happy to admit that the waters are murkied quite a bit by those editors who do clearly seem to be British point of view pushing as you accuse but I also think you're too quick to put editors in this category just because when you've encountered them their views, on that particular topic, happen to coincide with the "British point of view pushers".
 * I'd really appreciate it if you would enter into some dialogue. I'd hate to see this escalate to ArbCom and although I personally am no where near to taking it there I suspect, from comments on the RfC/U, many other editors are a lot closer to doing so.  Not discussing the issue is only going to make them more likely to do so.  If you've discussed the issue and reached agreement with the more reasonable editors around I suspect this is much less likely to end up in ArbCom and so be better all round. Dpmuk (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not discussing the issue? I have discussed the issue for three years and I couldn't give a fiddler's..eh...flute whether the bad guys go to Arbcom or not. And, lest we forget, you (British editor) started it. Also note you retracted your outrageous summary at "my" RfC; are you now retracting your retraction? I think the best policy in response to trolling is to ignore it. Sometimes. Sarah777 (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, if you want a really good summary of this whole issue, read my points 1 - 6 above. You couldn't say it better yourself :) Sarah777 (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict so not read your latest sentence]. What part of the above makes you thinking I'm retracting my retraction? I've admitted to you that I was wrong in that section but I only found that out after discussing it with you.  Your failure to talk to people is largely what lead to the RfC/U in the first place.  I may be wrong on other bits of my summary but as you won't explain things to me or anyone else I had to put what I thought was right.  I am not trolling.  I honestly think you cause a lot of problems by not being willing to discuss things and as I state above I seriously hope by discussing things we can sort things out, hence my comments above.  They were not intended to wind you up (hence not trolling) but were intended to enter a conservation with you, hopefully better understand your views and reach a reasonable conclusion to all this.  I do not see how making a reasonable reply to your comments can be considered trolling as I was merely informing you of my point of view - which I suspect isn't as far from yours as I think you suspect it is - in an attempt to try to help you understand where other editors may be coming from, not in an attempt to wind me up.  I'm interested as to why you keep on assuming the worst in me. Dpmuk (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

M2 motorway (Great Britain)
My proposed move from M2 → M2 (country) has passed; this is one up for the BHG position but it doesn't solve the primacy issue; just tames it a bit ("for now"...as the closing Admin wisely added). Sarah777 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I wholeheartedly agree with BHG on this issue. And it's one of the (few!) cases of British POV imposition I've seen. If there are any WP:RM discussions on this, let me know and I'll be happy to lend my support. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bastun; I'll be informing you on a selective basis then:) Obviously for those not involved here this is a bit complicated and utterly boring! Sarah777 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The motorways
I think I'll opt for using (England), (Scotland), (Wales), (Northern Ireland) with those road article titles within the United Kingdom. My personal choice would've been (United Kingdom), though. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah. I'd prefer the NEWS solution. More reader-friendly and less British nationalistic. Sarah777 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle, that's a knee slapper. (N)orthern Ireland (E)ngland (W)ales (S)cotland. Assuming I'm reading the NEWS correctly. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Spot on! Sarah777 (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I 'deleted' your comment at my Userpage, as I didn't know how to transfer it to my User talkpage. Please, feel free to re-add it (at my talkpage). GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear - did I post on you Userpage? Most humble apologies - not intentional. Sarah777 (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, Sarah. I was cheekier than you as I had the temerity to post a poem on his user page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're both free to re-add the comments on my talkpage, honestly. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the poems? by all means, post them on my main-page. That's what the section is for. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm feeling old and sorry for myself reflecting on all this Ireland motorway stuff. When I first drove in Ireland the only motorway in the Republic was a tiny stub of the M1 outside Dublin and a tiny part of the M7 motorway (Ireland) at Naas. Now look at it! Congratulations, and also on the referendum result. --John (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find it is commiserations and not congratulations are what the working class people of Dublin especially are looking for after Lisbon 2. BigDunc  18:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Trivia and stuff

 * I've never been to Ireland. But I know some of it's history, the good, and the sad - like what happened in 1848 in relation to the potatoes. Besides the tragedy of the starvation, I always wondered what happened to your trees, and forests, at the time. How is Ireland today regarding its trees? One consequence, of course, is our Irish-American population that's a result of that disastrous famine. But I have no idea how that affected the history of your people. A nice note: my mom had a health issue today - and she was treated by a very caring Irish American by the name of Ryan. I still am amazed how you can put all that effort into roadways. By the way, I'm not Palestinian. Glue: Allegedly I'd make an excellent Lawyer. LOL. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Is "glue" part of the clue?! I'm flummoxed. Scottish? Re Lisbon, for someone with fairly strong views on some things I had a hard time making up my mind on that one! Sarah777 (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ludvikus, are you by any chance my cousin Terry? He's a lawyer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL to you both!. Of all religions, I'd pick Muslim - that way I could legally have four (4) wives! But I'm not sexist. Would you charming gals (women) consider living in a universe (world) in which you could each have - legally - four husbands? If not, why not? If so, why so? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd consider (dream of) living in a world or universe where I would not need a husband at all, just a household of toyboys, preferably coin-operated.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I've got good news for you - you can get that device in Manhattan for a few dollars. But too bad for us men - I can see us being so easily replaced, and therefore completely deprived of being in your lively, lovely, charming and sexy presence(intellectual intelligence - as opposed to emotional intelligence - is the icing on the cake - great, but not required). Couldn't we (us men) at least be your devoted & obedient slaves doing your bidding & what you have that battery-powered electric machine do to you? Even that would be far better than being locked out completely - and forever - from you - in that your universe of your dreams. Anyway, I think I speak for many, or most, men when I say that(particularly for those men who love their mother - which I most certainly do - heaven bless here loving heart!)your ideal depiction is sad indeed, even depressing for most of us - that is, men who love women! --Ludvikus (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Why burden yerself with four husbands when you could get four boyz any night of the week! If you were that type of gal :) Sarah777 (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One husband is a burden in my book, I couldn't imagine having four of the boring, obnoxious creatures. (Shudder).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ludivikus, the only man who appreciates intellectually intelligent women is Bob Dylan, the rest are like Nicolas Sarkozy. Most men prefer a woman whose reading skills do not surpass the ability to read a recipe or the instructions on a box of detergent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I therefore really a Woman, disguising herself as a Man (still forced to live in a man's world)? And is that why the both of you are so nice to me here; so engaging? --Ludvikus (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said I didn't like men, Ludvikus, I just hate being married to them. How could I dislike men, when three of my four children are of the masculine gender.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never believed in marriage. IMHO, marriage is the chief cause of divorce: If nobody got married, nobody would get divorced. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they'd just get laid.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A very productive activity (sometimes re-productive). GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Kinda fond of men (in general) too - but won't be sharing too much here! Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, General! Small town in Ireland, isn't it? Why don't you want to share them? Are there not enough of them to go around for the both of you? ;) Jack forbes (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I reckon Jeanne is well provided for.....she's in Italy for chrissakes :) Sarah777 (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I do have quite a choice both in summer and winter as you can see here:User talk:Jeanne boleyn ooh baby, you know what I like--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thurles Chamber of Commerce
While browsing towns linked in the M8 motorway article, I came upon a link to Thurles Chamber of Commerce. Given the result, I wonder how often people driving through the area must become confused by the large Chinese population that certainly must live in Thurles. In fact, since I don't know Chinese I ran the link through Google translation and discovered the businesses in the area are quite concerned with digital image resolution, an odd obsession given "some of the finest agricultural land in the world" is found in the Suir Valley. Shouldn't they be more concerned with litres per hectare than dots per inch? Oh well, rather than comment at the article talk page I thought I would pass this by you and your TPWs maybe for a laugh or someone with more local knowledge to fix (or maybe not!) the link. Sswonk (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * !!:) Sarah777 (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Artist sought
Is there anyone out there who could draw up a map like this for Irish motorways? (It is on German Wiki and I can't link it)! Sarah777 (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI you can link to other language wikipedias simply by putting the country code followed by a colon before the link e.g. de:Datei:Karte_m1.gif which produces de:Datei:Karte_m1.gif. As for the artist side of thing, not really my cup of tea I'm afraid. Dpmuk (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sarah, if you can wait a little while I can attempt to convert this map, without the purple sea borders, into something. Let me know what you want for detail, I will give you a simple converted file later tonight if you think that type of map would do. Sswonk (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Waiting in anticipation! I must say the "open street map" is brilliant; it even had the rail line across the estuary at Malahide severed; within 24 hours of the collapse. That's up to date. Sarah777 (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

– Bear in mind this is a rough draft, and not complete. First, the roads could be labeled, cities added and colors changed. Give me some comments about the initial draft, and how you would change it. Sswonk (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, to a point. Following the German idea my idea is to create a map for each separate motorway; I'd bolden the motorway blue line one map for each motorway; the M8 article, for example, would show the map with only the Cullohill to Cork section boldened. Give it a lash! Sarah777 (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I wasn't sure about that. I have made dozens of maps for WP:MASH, see commons:Category:Maps of state highways in Massachusetts. Those were made using the standards at WP:USRD/MTF for colors and stroke width. I tried briefly to see if there is a similar European or Irish road maps standard. Do you know of such a page? Also, to follow your direction using the M8, after that how many roads are we talking about? I believe the OSM map this was derived from uses green for Nxx and blue for Mxx routes. To follow up on your request, give me about ten minutes to try the M8 example which I will upload as a replacement for the initial draft. Sswonk (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, try that by refreshing the page to see M8. Sswonk (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Perfect! We (aka you!) should make one to illustrate each motorway article; a picture being worth a thousands words (at least in this case). Sarah777 (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. I'll get these (M1 · M2 · M3 · M4 · M6 · M7 · M8 · M9 · M11 · M17 · M18 · M20 · M25 · M50) going today. There is a bit of a process that needs to occur to convert OSM to something we can use, so this won't be done today. But I will try to finish a few when I get time, with the filename in a "Mxx motorway (Ireland).png" form. The shortest routes around Dublin will have a zoomed in main portion with an inset of the entire country in one corner used as a location aid, similar to File:South Shore MA.png, without all the labeling of towns for now. I will alert you when I have uploaded the first few. Sswonk (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah! M7 is done, see File:M7_motorway_(Ireland).png. I can get M4, M6 and M8 (finalized) later tonight but I have to cook dinner right now. Sswonk (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * M4, M6, M7, M8 all done. I made one change to M8 which will carry over to the others, that is to brighten the blue of the highlighted road slightly. I may do more later tonight but this is it for a while. Eventually these can be moved to Commons but I am keeping them here at en.wikipedia for now. Sswonk (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nine A dozen thousand words so far. Sswonk (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Mega thanks Sswonk! At talk:M8 motorway (Ireland) talkpage one eminent roads editor has suggested incorporating these into the infobox. Any clue how that might be done? Sarah777 (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like this is it for now, although I think you asked for M3 to be the national map? A tight fit for such a small section, but if you confirm I will try to accommodate. Are there any others I missed? Sswonk (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * M3 is nearly a kilometre long - don't be cruel! Actually the current bit would be much better in the Dublin map but in six months or so they are opening the rest of it which will go to Trim, County Meath. Sarah777 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Confused, although this appears to be a highly controversial road. What about http://www.m3motorway.ie/DetailedMap/ — is it outdated or wishful thinking? Not going to Trim by that rendering. Sswonk (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooops! When I say Trim I mean Kells. Sarah777 (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Crowd Management system
Hi Sarah,

This is what happens when the (Franco)-Irish (Ernest Archdeacon) invent stuff. :)

79kph with a 1.5 metre propeller in 1906.

Imagine that on O'Connell Street. Regards Autodidactyl (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Imagine two of them - trying to pass! Sarah777 (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks like a lot of fun. Where can I buy one?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Halloween
Is the term derived from All Hallows or Samhain (see article). I can't see how it can derive from both, seeing as they are different languages. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rashers, I can't see where it says the name 'Halloween' derives from the Celtic name 'Samhain'! Sarah777 (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I always understood it derived from 'Oiche Samhain'. I see now its not so simple etymologically. RashersTierney (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All Hollows Eve (All Saints is the next day) - ClemMcGann (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it true, Jehovah's witnesses don't like Halloween, due to having strangers at their doors? GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, is it true? GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I really couldn't tell you. I didn't have any Jehovah's witnesses around my neck of the woods when I was young. Jack forbes (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, is this joke-telling party a private function or can anybody join in? (Hint, hint, nobody invited me!!!!!!!!)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Paraphrasing) Bobbie: "Quasimodo predicted all this." Tony: "Nostradamus! Nostradamus and Notre Dame, they're two different things. One's a cathedral." (Sopranos PEDRO WARNING: NSFW ). Sswonk (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dunno. Doesn't Goldilocks and the Three Bears equal four? Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Sarah, that's the spirit! Each participant adds another cultural non sequitur, until the thread diverges to the edge of space and wraps inward to meet itself, like an M. C. Escher print. All in an effort to "improve the encyclopedia", of course. In that spirit, I introduce you to this, a nice collection of concert posters, I hope you enjoy the art. Chosen of course because the final act on the list has a song called Walking with a Ghost, nice how that fits the original section topic, yes? don't let on to JB that it's all an effort to keep her clueless! Sswonk (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm baaaack! Any blocks, bans or Administrative atrocities I should know about? TICKETS AVAILABLE AT THE DOOR it says Sswonk and that doesn't surprise me - are they Halloween Bands? Sarah777 (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't think of any Halloween bands or sysop bans, those are just your run of the mill heavy acts—though Insane Clown Posse plays a genre known as horrorcore. Not really about the holiday, I'm afraid. How about an amusement park? Click the "Attractions", the Irish section of the park gets done over as "Mischief and Mayhem". This is at Busch Gardens Williamsburg, which Europeans might find amusing: it is a Euro-themed park, with rides and shops for each of seven countries. As we say here, only in America... Sswonk (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On the Escherprints my deviant perspective can't make the water feeding the waterfall appear to stay flat; it stubbornly seems to be rising. But I don't blame MCE for that. He has a good sense of humour as his self-portrait shows. What is that thing on his head? If you stare at it long enough it opens it's eyes and starts to move. Sarah777 (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As an Irish-American, which part of me is mischief and which part mayhem?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeanne, Sarah's answers have me in stitches most of the time, and I really should wait for her to quip on this, but your rhetorical question surely can be answered by an American, since being one you must realize we know every rhetorical answer. BG Williamsburg, where the show is presented, was founded in the seventies as a cheap substitute for European travel made available to the masses, simulating the great countries of our emigration within the convenient confines of a former pine scrub forest off U.S. 60. That given, I would say that the "Irish" half is all "Mischief and Mayhem" while the "American" half is "Dilettantes and Dollars". Although, viewing your travels on your user page, perhaps not in your case. Sswonk (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this?


!!!!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't fault him/her for lack of inventiveness in getting POV and WP:OR incorporated into project. RashersTierney (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bit of a firestarter though.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if someone will create a 'East Ireland' with a re-direct to Great Britain? GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You crack me up GD. But seriously, lets not encourage this most reprehensible behaviour. As sure as eggs is eggs, some WikiWarrior probably will. RashersTierney (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or if someone really wished to cause mayhem, he or she could create East America with a redirect to Great Britain and Ireland!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are countless avenues, he he. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, so very deleted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But where is Sarah? Sarah, paging Sarah.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aimlessly wandering the M1 having been inadvertently re-directed to West Britain? RashersTierney (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought one or two of you might like it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Say the secret woid and get a redirect deleted. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Baaaaak again! Through Kilkea I was wandering when this got me pondering. It appears that the Rural Group of the Federation of Rural Workers wanted their members to rest in peace for half of Saturday. And is there an Urban Group of Rural Workers? So many questions......as for the West Brit, what can I say? Sarah777 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Quirky. What building was it on? RashersTierney (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not on a building. On a little green at the side of the R418 road near Castledermot. I vaguely remember hearing about this strike from the old folk in the area. Sarah777 (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Found a little background on plaque and Joe Green. RashersTierney (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. The Round Bush is the very spot! Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The town bears
Hi, Sarah. I was wondering what this sentence referred to at the top of your page. "The Town Bears A Great History From 1100's to Present day Which Has Been Chronicled in a local book which got published and distributed to many local shops which was wrote by Students of the local Primary School". Which town would that be, and how many bears are there? :) Jack forbes (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Shanagolden, County Limerick! But I see Sswonk found it and has removed some of the local literary style :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made a wee change to the sentence. No more bears and have removed the word great (though I'm sure it is). Jack forbes (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thoroughly Wikified! Sarah777 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, if you could make it into a GA........Sarah777 (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What! You mean my edit hasn't achieved that already! What do you have to do on here to get a good article. Sheesh! Jack forbes (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack, don't ask that question (re: the discussion at GoodDay's talk page about the eternal charms of Julia Gardiner Tyler, hee hee hee)!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Feeling timid, not bold, I defer to you closer folk on this further push to GA. "Old abbey is an abbey outside Shanagoden. It is very important." Is this not St. Katherine's Abbey, Monisternagalliaghduff? Or some other "Old Abbey", which gets many hits when paired with Shanagolden in a search querry? Sswonk (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can tell you that "Monisternagalliaghduff" possibly means "monastery of the Black Churches". And it is near Halloween after all. Sarah777 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, this says "Monastery of the Black Nuns", although the spelling is somewhat different. Will you do the honors and change the currently misspelled entry I quoted above if you have time? I trust your ability to write it with authority more than mine. Seven days away, Sarah777. Sswonk (talk) 23:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Arragh...'twould be worried I am if 'twere 6 days off and I Sarah666. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You absolutely, positively kill me! Sswonk (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Food for thought
WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall I don't know if you have seen this, but it appears to be calling for a possibly viable solution to some of the persistent calls for weakening the death grip of admins on their positions. You have discussed aspects of that condition in the past, so I thought you might care to read the postings if you hadn't already. Sswonk (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Halloween dreams
Last night I had this weird dream. I was at mass, and the priest was suddenly transformed into Freddie Garrity as he was in 1965, complete with glasses, braces and witch's laugh, and he began singing "I'm Telling You Now". It's obvious Halloween is upon us already.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nightmare eh? Sarah777 (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. I wouldn't mind being back in 1965 watching Freddie and the Dreamers on the Ed Sullivan Show. Mind you I was verrrrry young back then.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sing this (very brief nudity) back to Freddie next time, Jeanne – Sswonk (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm getting depressingly nostalgic for my lost childhood.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have a priest friend who looks a lot like Freddie Garrity did in 1965. Hmm........Spooky indeed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Last night, I dreamt I was a muffler; then I woke up, exhausted. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you were most likely visited by a succubus which is why you woke up exhausted. We are approaching Hallowe'en you know.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, that's a better dream. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When I was 13 I was visited by an incubus in the form of Keith Richards. Mmmmm, Happy Hallowe'en!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Ya can't always get what ya want...". GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "But if you try sometimes, you might find, YOU GET WHAT YOU NEED......"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Some things never change!
A chara, I provided the detailed rational you asked for here but as I outline here it did not make a blind bit of difference. They revert regardlass. Get a load of their rational here which is basiclly, so what if the editor who added the text in the first place was adding their own POV and WP:OR, I agree with the information regardless of why they added it. So we have two unrelated facts being use to provide "context" for an editors WP:OR. -- Domer48 'fenian'  15:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree and am reverting where appropriate. We must be ever mindful of 3rr. Sarah777 (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

North Slob
Hi Sarah777, i just created a pretty basic stub for North Slob, i was wondering if you or any of your similarly interested colleagues would like to help to expand it - i'm contacting you because of your commitment to improving local Irish articles, let me know what you think. Cheers, Darigan (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Will be delighted to help. I might even take a spin down the R742 to take some pitchers if someone else doesn't get there ahead of me! Sarah777 (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this be North Yob, instead? LOL. Oh, Happy Hallowe'en, Sarah!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Pitchers, i'm not sure if they allow drinking on the slob.. lol, Cheers Sarah777, best Darigan (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Passed the place this morning but didn't have time to stop! Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)



Standards melt-down
Will ya look at the pitcher-of-the-day above! Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck. How in the name of the Himalayan Gods could that bog-standard portrait win? (Usually the pic-de-jour is pretty cool). Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heard a good one today; the new N25 Waterford by-pass bridge is called the "Liam McCarthy Bridge". It bypasses Waterford :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Redking7
I'm usually a positive sort, but in this case Rd7 may have damaged his chances of getting his Indef block 'repealed', by evading it. Anyways, I've asked a for a review at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK G'Day - do you have a link? Sarah777 (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Posted at Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We've a problem, Redking7's been using his sock-puppet for 2-yrs (before & after his indef-block). I'm not impressed at all. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AN/I
I thought you should know there's an AN/I thread about you. It doesn't look like you were informed, as you should have been. --John (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah, how come you're so popular around here? Most people don't even know I exist!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe annoy some daft Admin and get blocked by him - might not help with "popularity" but seems to gain some "notoriety". Health warning: There are considerable downsides :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Popularity breeds contempt"- George O'Dowd, 1982.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)



NowCommons: File:IMG BrownshillPortalsGate.jpg
File:IMG BrownshillPortalsGate.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:IMG BrownshillPortalsGate.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A nightmare for Sarah777
Ya awaken to learn:
 * Ireland has re-joined the United Kingdom.
 * British Isles is permanently edited into Wikipedia (with no chance of reverting).
 * On your Userpage, your Tri-colors flag is replaced by the Union Jack (and ya can't revert it). GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That I am your new next-door neighbour!! Ha ha ha ha ha........Rolling Stones 24 hours a day at full blast.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That you're in Vegas and Bastun is NOT asleep beside you! --HighKing (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ta v much chaps and chapette. I'm especially thinking about that last one HK....Sarah777 (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL - but it was Rashers who "fixed" my nightmare :-) --HighKing (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If only 'fixing' nightmares was always so simple, RashersTierney (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! The pov warriors go back to 2001. Maybe it's time we suggested a name change? RoI clearly is the wrong name for the Wiki article. Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't give it much thought. Just keep sending in those amazing photos. The 'Spud Sack'recipe, I loved. RashersTierney (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had to fight off several attempts to delete that pic on various grounds including copyright; sneaking recipes into Wiki and advertising! Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I was there! Great pic though. RashersTierney (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, here is a pictorial teaser. What is this yoke and where is it? (First to get the right answer gets a night with Bastun; second gets two nights etcetera :) Sarah777 (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A biometric 'witch testing apparatus'. No witches in need of legit. travel documents should comply! In the outside chance that I win this prestigious competition, bu**ered if I'm spending a night with mo dhuinne!, much less two! RashersTierney (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a friend at school and she entered a singing contest at a Feis. She was the only contestant and the judges decided to give her the silver medal based on her performance. I'll award you the bronze - three  nights with Bastun - based on that reply :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Once won a real bronze at a real feis (still have it somewhere). Will gladly trade it in to evade this undoubted honourt! RashersTierney (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And you won it for what?? I won a Gold  once for Agallamh ! Sarah777 (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I won it for being (fairly) good! RashersTierney (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the photo is meant to symbolise the Wikipedian editors who always seem to get reported and dragged over to AN/I.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A 21st century style of ducking-stool.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Oscar Wilde - or maybe Groucho Marx - has an appropriate saying about it being better for people to be talking about you than ignoring you...


 * slinks off back to bed... * Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And why not with Rashers waitin' there for ya? :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And what's keeping you from joining the pair, Sarah? I never reckoned you to be shy, LOL!!!!!! GoodDay is also waiting for his cue to jump into the scene!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All this talk has made me an' me little dog Rusty feel a bit dirty. We're off for a dip in the scholar dunky thingy an' will be waitin' refreshed for ye all when ye're ready to come back to bed. RashersTierney (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can my hot-blooded, red-furred tomcat, Tony join in the action?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Coarse he can, more the merrier, right after he's had his 'dunk'. That should cool his passions a bit. RashersTierney (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony doesn't need a dunk as he's pretty handy with his tongue.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Geez! I think I need another wash! RashersTierney (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony has siblings, and offspring-if ye're interested.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry JB, he's just not my type (for Oh so many reasons). RashersTierney (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * .A pity. Still a little cat-pimping never does any harm LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You've given a whole new dimension to the term 'Cathouse'. RashersTierney (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My cat Tony would put all the brassers and gigolos out of business.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sammy Davis a.k.a. Samantha Pantha glowers with righteous disapproval in the name of all catholicism at the base and salacious tone of the operators of this discourse. Or maybe not, she may be smiling, it's tough to gauge her looks sometimes. Can I get away with blasphemy if I use a small "c"? How about WP:NPA, are the Thought Police headed my way? Sswonk (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa! I swear I did not plan to post the above at exactly 17:11 on 7-11, that was completely serendipitous, Sarah777! Sswonk (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its all those innocent looking familiars stalking the place. Beginning to get decidedly spooky around here. RashersTierney (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm...I wonder what she was up to when she took the photo of Sammy? Sarah777 (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah777 are you suggesting Sammy-sent sprites subsumed my spirit to serendipitously snap a self-portrait? I thought I took Sammy's photo! Surpassingly spooky supposition you've sponsored. Sswonk (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! That was you :) I thought it was Jeanne - all those cats have me confused! Sarah777 (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean bewitched. RashersTierney (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, what's the story with the Iron cage above - looks like an Irish bridge, but the river doesn't somehow. RashersTierney (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)



Kells, County Kilkenny
That is where the river, bridge and dunkin' thingy are. The river is "Kings River". What the yoke itself is I have no idea! Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing, and only guessing, that it was left over from an arts festival two weeks before, reported here: http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/arts/River-Art-at-Kells-mill.5497392.jp – Sswonk (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Possible; though this thing had a slightly permanent look about it. Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No doubt about it. The yoke is here to stay. Can't unbake the cake! RashersTierney (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you tease out the alternatives to the Iron cage I'd guess not many folk would end up in a better situation. Sarah777 (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no alternative (its a bit like taxation). Its a wee box of our own making. Well, not really ours, but you know what I mean. RashersTierney (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Orange
Melange? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why did I hear the phrase "Melange a trois" in my head just now....? --HighKing (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that is simply mucky... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not the way we pronounce it! Sarah777 (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's poetry - nothing is pronounced the way it is in real life! LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Soooo....howzabout this?


 * There are Wiki Eds from around,
 * Who trolling this page can be found,
 * Old Good Day, Rashers T
 * Less heard V, Jeanne C
 * And a gang of Admins from Britain.

Sarah777 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahem. I'm not from Britain, I'm from Scotland. Ever been? --John (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem, and I'm Jeanne B, not C. I do confess, however, to be the editor responsible for most of the smutty content on Sarah's talk page. I hereby offer my profuse apologies and promise to augment the content in future.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Poetic licence folks. Scotland? It's like a second home :) Sarah777 (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeanne B; you will augment the smut?! Sarah777 (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good news
As part of the Doughnut Drive 2009, you are officially designated as Chair of the Irish contingent and lead representative for the Gravy rings article. Thank you for your cooperation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. In some parts of Northern Ireland, ring doughnuts are referred to as "gravy rings" due to their being cooked in oil, itself colloquially known as "gravy". How is that for a start? Sarah777 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it just another name for a doughnut? Where should it be mentioned? I see it's mentioned in a poem backaram (sp?) and other pub fare. Do you think it's notable enough for a worthwhile stand-alone article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you check Ye Olde Urbane Dictionarie you'll see:


 * Ask any kid in Belfast. A Donut's got jam in it.
 * A Gravy Ring has a hole in the middle.
 * Certainly even in Dublin a jam doughnut had an internal cavity filled with jam and wasn't shaped like a doughnut! So I'd reckon the Belfast "gravy ring" is just another name for the American-style donut!! Sarah777 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah, are you by any chance referring to the divine glazed doughnuts? I would die for a glazed doughnut. I adore glazed doughnuts. In Los Angeles, I lived a few streets away from a doughnut shop which was full of glazed doughnuts-ah talk about paradise on earth......I wanna glazed doughnut (stamps her foot in frustration)!!!!!!.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

At least
you have a sense of humour...Jdorney (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite the constant attention of dodgy Admins! Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ...and the dodgy attention of constant User Page trolls :-) RashersTierney (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like me, Rashers? You're not accusing me of being dodgy are you?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all, Jeanne. You, like meself are just constant ;-) RashersTierney (talk) 10:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please undo your edit to Peter Hart
Please undo this edit. If you are unwilling to edit in compliance with WP:BLP you will be banned from editing the article. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you cease talking in cryptics and tell me why  the reference is wrong? Sarah777 (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you'd read the talk page before reverting you'd know. I'm not particularly looking for a fight here, but I cannot tolerate people using ridiculously bad sources - anything remotely political from the AHS is a questionable source - in biographies of living people. And we don't do coat-racks of criticism either. So please undo the edit. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much indeed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sarah, that article was reported at the BLP noticeboard, two outside reviewers worked on the article to make it BLP compliant. Many of those criticisms are from very questionable sources and edit-warring over them, during a BLP cleanup is not a good idea. Especially since it has become clear this is has turned into a personal crusade for Domer. I'd stay well away, if I were you (and as I am doing). Rockpock  e  t  23:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rock, but it isn't in my nature to ignore the guy being mugged out of cowardice. I am not convinced of the neutrality of some Admins here but am WP:AGFing while I investigate this further. Domer has made some points which, to put it mildly, have not been convincingly addressed. Sarah777 (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not averse to a little more detail on who the critics are and why they are criticizing him. The problem is, when Domer had his way, the article ended up like this (which I hope you can see is a BLP horrorshow). Editors who have a large axe to grind are not the people who should be editing BLPs, and making decisions about what is fair criticism. Rockpock  e  t  23:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Hart is not a revisionist". A statement of "fact" by an Admin who can now surely be regarded as a participant in this dispute? Obviously he is not a believer in the duck test. Sarah777 (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hart is not a revisionist, nor is he a revisionist. He has been described as a revisionist, however. Big difference. Rockpock  e  t  23:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah. He is a revisionist who has also been described as a revisionist. Big difference, as you say. Guy on the right is a duck, not a goose. Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your opinion of him, of course, but Hart doesn't describe himself as a revisionist and we don't use the duck test when it comes to proscriptive labeling in BLPs. So, no, he is not a revisionist for our article's purposes. Looks like Angusmclellan wasn't messing about when he was talking about page bans. I expect we'll see some blow back from this, but I have little sympathy. Domer had been warned multiple times, but he just doesn't seem to get BLP. I'm very close to seeking a similar ban for Dunmanway killings for the exact same reason. Rockpock  e  t  23:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh...which living  person, exactly, is involved in the Dunmanway article? Sarah777 (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see where Hart describes himself as a Canadian but the article claims he is. As for "blowback" - you might be right. I am racking my tiny brain for other interventions I seem to recall by this Admin in Ireland-related articles. Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Valid question, you would think it would not be relevant, right? Unfortunately Domer has decided that, if the material criticizing Hart is not permissible on Peter Hart's own article, he can use it on the article about the Dunmanway killings. The result is such BLP gems as:
 * The person he identified as Frank Busteed and who's father was a Protestant Meehan writes, would have undermined Hart's sectarian thesis. 
 * Which is particularly impressive considering there is nothing in the article about Frank Busteed, nothing about Frank Busteed's father and nothing about Hart's thesis. But why should we let those mere details get in the way of calling him "sectarian"?
 * As for him be called Canadian. If you have concern over that as unsourced critical content, then you could tag it (and deal with GoodDay's ire). Rockpock  e  t  00:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted that you are applying the duck test to Domer but not to Hart. Sarah777 (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that we are not writing an article about Domer. Everyone is welcome to their opinions, so long as they don't try and strong-arm them into articles. Rockpock  e  t  00:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My sentiments exactly. Sarah777 (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Peter Hart, a fellow Canuck? Who'd a thonk it. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you know of him before he became infamous? Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, is when I first heard of this guy. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it then! Sarah777 (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Handsome duck though? Sarah777 (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what he looks like, there' no image at his article. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeez! I'm talking about the bloody DUCK! Sarah777 (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that mallard duck. Your fav color is green, I assume? GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No - blue actually. Like the Italian football team! Sarah777 (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Mine's red. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your what is red? Sarah777 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My fav color. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (Had a Jeanne moment there!) Sarah777 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Tis OK, I'm not blushing. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that was funny Sarah. I'd hate to see you after a few pints; I'm quite strait-laced and my face would be as red as GoodDay's favorite color. --John (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just your face? Ha ha ha ha ha ha (Freddie Garrity laugh).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)



Concern
Sarah777, I am concerned by this edit of yours at Kilmichael Ambush, where you reverted the article to a version by Domer48 from several weeks earlier. Your edit summary said simply, "Restore best version". However, it appears that you have never participated at that article's talkpage, which makes the revert even more questionable. As I'm sure you know, articles in this topic area fall within the scope of Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, which means that reverting is actively discouraged. Technically you have not violated the 1RR restriction on the article, but still, reverting several weeks of edits could be perceived as disruptive, and reverting without engaging on the talkpage is definitely disruptive. If you continue with this kind of behavior, you may risk being placed under probation, which might further restrict your editing. To avoid this, simply avoid reverting, and instead concentrate on changing text to a compromise version, as well as to actively engage in talkpage discussions when there is a disagreement. This will be the best way to ensure long lasting changes. Thanks, --Elonka 01:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK; firstly, I don't see how this is "troubles" related. The "troubles" (so-called) lasted from 1968 - 1998, the ambush was 50 years earlier. I don't always check talkpages before improving an article - does anyone? I can't be held responsible for the claimed "perception" of other editors (including those with a political axe to grind). But of course as I don't wish to be seen as disruptive by such as your good self I will refrain from further editing the ambush article as it appears my contributions are unwelcome. Sarah777 (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I share Elonka's concern. Far from "improving" the article, your edit (for example) removed a reference and replaced it with a tag. You are obviously an intelligent person, so seeing you defend this problematic edit surprised me greatly. Please do be careful. --John (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * John, I'm always careful, but not to the point of paralysis. Note my kind words to Elonka even though after an utterly indefensible indefinite block by Fozzie a few years ago she wanted to extend it to have me banned forever? I nonetheless hold no grudge. How careful is that? I mean really? I'm not Mother Theresa. Sarah777 (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, it's nice of you to call me intelligent. I think you're cute :) Sarah777 (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubles related articles
As I have now discovered (thanks Elonka) the Kilmichael Ambush is a "troubles-related article". I must repeat my request for some definition of what "troubles-related" means. Being a believer in cause and effect (at least in the local Universe) I can't see how the Ambush was related to events that occurred half a century later. Is the article on Ireland "troubles related"? What about the M50 motorway (Ireland)? I assume, more obviously, that just about any article about the British Army is "troubles related" - at least there the connection is obvious. But we need some guidance here. Sarah777 (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah an article about a footballer was tagged as Troubles related by Elonka Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer). So the scope grows it appears once the name Ireland or NI is mentioned it is troubles related. BigDunc  12:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think those Admins who see an analogy with Macedonia are in for a shock. The law of unintended consequences will kick in; though it certainly won't be unpredicted consequences. Sarah777 (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I've got an Irish ancestry userbox on my user page, does that make me Troubles related ? "You've got your troubles, I've got mine........"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the Anglo-Admins at ANI, yes, you are troubles related. Sarah777 (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But, but, am I what?.......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I don't need to give any explanation. Another comment and you get blocked for a week. Sarah777 (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Goodbye cruel world. PS, who's gonna do the Infobox on the Lord of Thomond if I get blocked, hm hm?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

@Sarah777: Where edit-warring is taking place in Ireland/Britain-related articles, especially when it's involving the same editors who are just overflowing the dispute from one such article to the next, all can fall within the scope of the Troubles case. As you may recall (since you were involved in the discussion), this was affirmed via community consensus in October 2008, with the language, "When in doubt, assume it is related." See Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. --Elonka 17:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

GFA
It says it almost immediately Sarah. It says, hi this is Good Friday, and we agree that, 1.., 2.., 3.., 4.., 5.We acknowledge the substantial differences between our continuing, and equally legitimate, political aspirations... It says "...continuing, and equally legitimate, political aspirations..." I should go over it several times including the acknowledging difference part but I think I get it. I guess that means that the Republic will not be considering the North as Irish as one of its own as any time soon and that the Unionists will be insisting that any claims of them to be irish would be ridiculous, right? ~ R.T.G 13:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh no wait, have I got his right, the Irish claims the North to be Irish and the Unionists say thats Ok and they assure each other they aren't going to do anything about it? It couldn't be as simple as that Sarah, somebody had to lose out, what do you say? If somebody doesn't lose out of that agreement soon they will all be killing each other up there. ~ R.T.G 13:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * RTG, you've achieved the near impossible - you've lost me :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha ha, you are very funny but you are misled to believe that the Good Friday Agreement shirked the republics claims, or the Unionist claims regarding Northern Ireland, it merely said that they will not be fighting about it so visciously and concentrating on peace building instead but, what's particularly important to the definition is that the Republicans accepted the Unionist claims to be legitimate and vis-versa, the Unionists accepted the Republican claims to be legitimate with agreements that all claims were continuing, no change in claims just accepting peace and that, encouraging NI to do its own thing now that oppression and uprising was off the cards. It probably is the most agreeable agreement they have ever made ;) ~ R.T.G 13:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Kavanagh Centre
The aticle Patrick Kavanagh Centre which I created was tagged notable and refimprove by user Toon05. I have added external references since and would be grateful if you could review it. It is still a stub article I think and requires more work. Cathar11 (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cathar11 I tidied up the citations using the Reflinks script, a very useful tool for bare inline references. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ive used the tool now to tidy up other article refs.Cathar11 (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work! I've removed some redundant tags and added the article to the IrelandWikiProject list. Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review and help.Cathar11 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PK is my all-time favourite poet. Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mine too ;)Cathar11 (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresentation
Sarah, I am getting very tired of your attempts to misrepresent my editing. "All I see there is Rock edit-warring (apparently with impunity on articles that Elonka says are 1RR)." in references to this and this. None of my edits to that article could be remotely be considered edit-warring. None of my edits were reverts and none of them have been reverted. I fully explained on the talk page why I made them. Hoe can that be edit-warring?

In contrast, you did made an extensive and controversial revert without comment, and Jdorney also reverted. And yet, "All [you] see there is Rock edit-warring"? That is extremely unfair and misleading. While we may disagree on a number of issues, I did not expect you to try completely misrepresent edits simply to try and demonise me. Please strike your comment (or rephrase if you wish to make another point). Rockpock e  t  19:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I was peed off with you and the comment was neither accurate nor fair. Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If you want to accuse me of edit-warring. A link to Dunmanway killings should do the trick. Not my finest hour :( Rockpock  e  t  20:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Space cadets not welcome
Just a quick hi Sarah to say I'm still here! Despite some poor efforts. I had a bit of a laugh "two outside reviewers worked on the article to make it BLP compliant" LOL. -- Domer48 'fenian'  18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe two aliens would be required to test compliance. Can't see the En:Wiki community producing the necessary WP:NPOV mindset. Sarah777 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, if you want a really good laugh, go to Angus's talk page and read Rock's take on "reliable sources". Surreal! Sarah777 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what is so funny, A request was made at the BLP noticeboard when the article was thus, your preferred version, and I volunteered to take care of it, so rewrote thus, which you strongly objected to. If you think BLP compliance is a laughing matter, then I strongly suggest you stop editing them. Rockpock  e  t  00:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that the definition of "reliable sources" by the dominant Anglo male demographic on En:Wiki is a laughing matter. Wouldn't you agree? Sarah777 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also pl note; I edited the Kilmichael Ambush article, not any BLP. Sarah777 (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Get your facts right, Sarah. I "dismiss" a subset of media because it is not reliable by our policies. You appear to tailor BLP depending on your personal feelings about the individual, but some of us take BLP seriously irrespective of who the target is. Rockpock  e  t  00:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh...Kilmichael Ambush is a BLP of who....exactly? (Certainly not the British participants!! Lmao!) Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what? I would have expected that sort of comment from a number of editors here, Sarah, but not you. Is anti-British sentiment so ingrained that laughing about the death of people, just because of their nationality, is somehow ok? So, so sad.
 * Anyway, the Kilmichael Ambush has exactly the same BLP issues about Hart as both Dunmanway and his bio did. I'll tackle them myself in the coming days, but in the meantime I have put a NPOV tag on that section. Please do do not substitute yourself for Domer over fighting this issue. It didn't work out well for him, and it will not work out well for you if you try the same tactics.  Rockpock  e  t  00:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Rock, may "I strongly suggest you stop editing" Ireland related articles if you can't get a grip on the concept of NPOV ( as distinct from "our" Anglo-American POV). Sarah777 (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't "substitute" for anyone. And I note your threats; a bit like the US or UK talking about "consequences" for all those nations who won't bend to their will. We see how that is working out - The rest of the non-Anglo globe is still laughing at that! Sarah777 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, openly laughing about the killing of the people described in the article is unlikely to convince me you are speaking from a position of any neutrality whatsoever. Its shameful, it really is. It wasn't a threat, I was asking you to not get involved in something that will not turn out well, because I would prefer you don't end up restricted like Domer was. If you want to ignore that, then that is up to you. And less of the Anglo- business. I don't know who you think I am, but I'm Anglo-nothing. Rockpock  e  t  01:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Rock, if you have a problem with jokes about the demise of the bad guys nearly 100 years ago then we are not heading to a great meeting of minds. And no apologies for that. Sarah777 (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Given people are still dying today, supposedly fair game in the ultimate pursuit of the same goal, and given the glorification of such violence and those who perpetrate it, pervades discussions on these subjects, I find your flippancy to be provocative and in poor taste. "Bad guys" and, it follows, "good guys" are found in comic books and cartoons. Not encyclopaedias. Lets leave it at that, shall we. Rockpock  e  t  01:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)






 * "people are still dying today" - sh*t; so humanity ain't immortal yet? Glorification of what violence? The occupation? Spit it out Rock - not like you to be so obfuscatory. Are you talking about the tens millions of poppy-wearing folk paying homage to violence - or someone else? Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Y'know Rock, the common Anglo view is that the loss of tens of millions of lives was worth it for freedom and the defeat of fascism in Europe. Surely a few thousand lives in Ireland was a truly a tiny  price for ridding, or trying to rid this island of the same? I don't see many squeamish folk claiming the gassing of Germans or the bombing of Dresden was too high a price to pay for victory in the world wars. The comics showing "Fritz" shouting "Ach! - these Englanders!" as they are graphically mowed down - comics and films that you and you cohorts were reared on. But any equivalent from the IRA in the War of Independence would be suppressed as "glorifying violence". I bet you never even thought of that, eh Rock? The double standards. The conditioning? Guilty? Take your hypocrisy and..... Sarah777 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about, say, a Polish pizza delivery man. Guess what, no BLP for him either. Ha fucking ha. Rockpock  e  t  02:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is rather funny, because it turns out the gentleman in question didn't die. So he would have a BLP. Still, the same couldn't be said for the soldiers who ordered the pizza. Or does being a member of an "occupying force" justify their shooting? Rockpock  e  t  02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry? This Polish guy was shot during the War of Independence, was he? Was he aiding and abetting the the British occupation? What would the French Resistance have make of him? Some sort of meat topping I'd guess :) (Excuse the joke) Sarah777 (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And the British soldiers who died were going where in a few hours? O yes - going off to kill people in Afghanistan. Gosh - so the shooters probably saved the lives of Afghan women and children! You want me to get upset about that? Sarah777 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You asked what I meant by "people are still dying today, supposedly fair game in the ultimate pursuit of the same goal." Well, that was what I meant. Furthermore, there are editors who have expressed vocal support for that goal and for those who pursue it through violence. Those same editors regularly try to provoke other editors with comments almost exactly like you made above. I expected that from them, not from you. This is an encyclopaedia, not a battleground, and I see no need whatsoever to make provocative jokes. That is all. Now when I express amusement about the killing of any individual, German, English, Irish, Afghan, then feel free to accuse me of hypocrisy. Until that time, its worth considering that you are the only one laughing. Rockpock  e  t  03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt that! What do you mean by dying for "the same goal"? Which goal? Still the obfuscation. This is an encyclopaedia, indeed. Not a pulpit for Anglo-centric POV. Remember our rule - that fact that someone might something offensive is no reason to censor it? I made a joke about unknown and un-notable armed trained killers who died nearly 100 years ago. Only someone who feels strongly that those killings were wrong would respond in the manner you did I would suggest. Bit of a give-away I'd say. And you bring a modern Polish pizza man into it. Implication: all people killed by shooting in the world at any time period died "for the same goal". That would require a major re-write of much of Wiki then. Wouldn't it? 83.70.248.21 (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Framing historical events in terms of right and wrong, good guys and bad guys is not something I am interested in. As much as you would like me to express one, I don't have an opinion on the moral and ethical benefits of killing 17 soldiers 90 years ago beyond what the reliable sources tell us. I do have an opinion on editors intentionally provoking other editors, which was what I thought you were doing. If I was wrong, and that was not your intention, then please accept my apologies. Clearly we differ in opinion on the appropriateness of laughing about the deaths of people, any people, but as you note Wikipedia is not censored for taste. Finally, could I again ask you to drop the Ango- label that you preface your opinions of my contributions with. Your appear unusually interested in my nationality, which is not something I have disclosed. If you really want to know the details, then I will disclose it to you. But as I already told you, I am Anglo- nothing.  Rockpock  e  t  19:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rock, can't recall was it email or whatever but I'm fairly sure you once told you were XXXXXXXXX, did you not?! Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what nationality XXXXXXXXX is, but let me be clear: it is not American and not British, therefore using me as some Anglo-American poster-child is wide of the mark. I think you may have been taking BigDunc, Domer and Vk's accusations a little too seriously. Rockpock  e  t  23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sheesh! Of course you know what XXXXXXX is. You may be the only one who does! Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean XXXXXXX. Thought you meant XXXXXXXXX. By the way, I'm super glad you and Giano together managed to avert a potentially disastrous trans-Atlantic rift this evening. Even by Giano's standards, that is quite a tantrum. I would hate to see his reaction when Mrs Giano forget to put sugar in his morning tea... 'Who dared serve my beverage sans sugar. I DEMAND to know. I shall not rest until the incompetent is relieved of their tea making duties etc. How long before he tries to leverage this into a reason Vk should be unblocked, do you think? Rockpock  e  t  02:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ya'll are wasting your breaths. Canada will dominate the world, by the 22nd century. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it already did in the form of Celine Dion. O Canada........--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll undoubtedly have a User:Sarah777 IVth valiantly fighting to rid the wiki of gross Canadicentralism... If it comes to pass, though, can you get your Canuck cohorts to officially rename the British Isles, so there'll be one less battle on here?  I propose we call them Oileain Mór agus An-Mhór. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someday, it'll be the Canadian Isles. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally like my own creation:Brish Isles, although it might sound as if the speaker was just drunk.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Anorak's korner
The problem with 99.9% of republicans is, they don't seem to care about Irish culture to begin with. Its all about victim-complexes' and mythologies (almost identical to the psychology of Marxism). How many know who the most famous Irish philosopher, Eriugena is? Could tell you what Leth Cuinn and Leth Mogha are? Can name a single Irish king outside of Brian Boru? Could tell you the difference between saints Brendan, Malachy, Flannan and Senan? Or what the difference between the O'Neill and O'Brien was? The republican grouping on Wikipedia never tries to improve these central Irish culture articles, but instead spend all the time arguing about English-speaking tourists from Britain like Connolly and Pearse.

When I've been editing these cultural articles, I've only ever come across Americans helping to build them (like DinDraithou or Jeanne). Even when I've been editing basic Irish geography articles (such as County Clare and I'm trying to help make the Irish state article better), the sole contribution from republicans I've seen is arguing fanatically over title terminology (a la British Isles, or rattling on about "Tan Wars" on the talk). If they tried to help constructively build articles like this, instead of viewing Wikipedia as a battle ground and whinging about a so-call "Big Brit-Yank conspiracy", maybe the wider community would have more patience. And Ireland articles on here would be in a better state. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And that relates to what, exactly? People edit in their areas of interest I'd guess. You sort out Flannan from Senan and I'll tackle geography. I'll also continue to point out the physical and cultural genocide of Gaelic Culture and people from 1550 - 1920, and the ongoing imposition of Anglo-American pov on Irish articles. The culture is DEAD. Or is like some species surviving in the last protected enclave in a park in Africa. Which is why only a few anoraks are now interested in Malachy. I don't have to have the slightest interest in the Tasmanian aboriginals to proclaim that they were exterminated by the British. It is a simple fact and assumes no knowledge or even interest what their culture was. I'm sure there is a point struggling to escape from your rant - it just doesn't quite make it. (And, btw, don't make assumptions about what 99.9% of "Republicans" don't know about. You'll end up looking even sillier that you already do). Sarah777 (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comparing Ireland to a bunch of tribes which objectively never developed any relevent civilisation ever, really drives the point home. Its cringeworthy and not based in reality. Much of the peasantry of Southern and Eastern Europe was at a comparable level of development, not nomadic aborginal Australia. Aside from clutering the encyclopedia with fantasty and mope, there doesn't really seem to be any relevent encyclopedic fruits from the whole self-degrading republican shtich, thus why the community seems to be fast loosing patience with the whole circus. Oh and if the Union Jack is as bloody as neo-nativists and other post-colonial apologetic third worldists protests, lets not pretend the Irish people were all wearing grass skirts and feathers in their hair until the 1950s, see Michael O'Dwyer and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So, you reckon that slaughtering "a bunch of tribes" is fine? I know that Irish civilization was more advanced than nomadic cultures - however I don't share the view that somehow that negates the fact of physical and cultural genocide. Either in relation to Gaelic civilisation of the plains Indians or Tasmanian tribes. The Union Jack is steeped in the blood of them all, and much more besides; like innocents in modern Iraq and Afghanistan. As for Irish bad guys - the world is full of them. But Ireland doesn't officially celebrate their savagery. Unlike the poppy-wearing morons from Britain. Sarah777 (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're an ignorant racist Yorkshire and if anyone wants to complain about what I just wrote, read what he opened up reading and note that I have come across this racist several times. Nobody wants to see your pointless racist accusations. You don't know what republicanism is, you don't understand it or you are just racist on purpose. Any of those ways, you don't care less. You are pulling phrases out of your backside and putting them in quotation marks to deceive people into thinking you are quoting others regular opinions. You have said nothing constructive let alone convincing here. Your ongoing extreme criticism of Irish, or any other people, is not appropriate for this wiki. The cultural development of our peoples is none of your concern. What is a "neo-nativist"? Clear off. If you do not appreciate foreign ethnicity, don't involve yourself with it. There is plenty of articles related to Yorkshire and England to involve yourself with. You are on the back of a one year ban for this behaviour. You don't need to discredit me racially and I have seen it too many times now so will be trying to compile a decent complaint about you. He's openly racist Sarah and that is his main agenda. If you want to stick to the wider community Yorkshirian, head out there and find it. You are obviously not picking up the Irish history with any decent success. You have had people picking at your suppositions on Irish articles before and you had better believe that resulting from this rubbish you are posting here, you still need a few things pointed out to you. ~ R.T.G 00:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Spare me the whinging and crying. How does one be "racist" in this area, when my own ethnic background is half-Irish, half-Italian? (not that Wikipedia entails "race checks" before editing articles, we're an encyclopedia not an aparteidpedia) Republicanism is a socialist political movement, not a "race". I will continue to work on articles relating to Ireland, Irish people and Irish history, completely unfazed by your far-left cheast beating. I suggest you take your own advice and clear off, its not like you contribute anything in the way of content is it? Judging by RTG's Wiki spree tonight apparently "thats waysist!" is his favourite ad hominem. Precious. "Discredit you racially??", what exactly are you on. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "The problem with 99.9% of republicans is..." that is your problem right there... the racism in your opening comment which you expanded and compounded. Bring this material to a psychologist and ask, "If I were worried about my mental integrity, how best should I proceed?", you will be told, "Lay off the racism". Ok I am done. Just go and elswhere and complain about Bulgarians or someone else. I appologise Sarah, for this rubbish on your page. I will not continue it here. GLuck ~ R.T.G 10:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * RTG, I was going to note that this editor seemed to have made some rather racist remarks but thought I was maybe reading too much into it as I have no previous knowledge of him/her. On reflection maybe I will class said editor in the "remove on sight" category. Thanks for the heads-up. Sarah777 (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)