User talk:Sarah777/Archive 29

Image uploads
I was surprised to find an experienced editor like you uploading images here - especially, since they are of Irish subjects, do you not want the Gaelic wiki to be able to use them?



Your images should be:
 * uploaded to the Commons
 * do not put IMG in their names - since they are uploads, it is implicit that they are images
 * release to public domain if you want, but I suggest you retain some rights, eg. use &#123;{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}
 * if you have already uploaded the same image to Geograph, please either use the geograph template or put the image in the Geograph category but without the licence - this will prevent my anomaly checker reporting them
 * better image descriptions and categories are always welcomed.

You will find your recent uploads in this list. &mdash; RHaworth 11:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi - I didn't upload Geograph images here - I uploaded a few of those I had uploaded here to Geograph! When uploading to Wiki I have only been uploading to Commons for the past couple of years - the shots you've identified were loaded here in 2007 or 2006. And Ophrys sphegodes tarquinia isn't one of mine :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. The sudden appearance on Geograph misled me. &mdash; RHaworth 09:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No prob. Sarah777 (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy Easter
Happy Easter, Sarah!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And to you! Did the bunny leave you anything? Sarah777 (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, and I had to buy my own chocolate bunny as nobody gave me one, not even an egg. I would have accepted a chocolate hen, which would have suited me fine. Oh well......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio
Sorry, but File:IMG WorkshopHistory1335.jpg looks like a blatant copyright violation to me. &mdash; RHaworth 01:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blatant is very strong language and fails to AGF. I'm frankly disappointed RH. Sarah777 (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah. Do you know if the sign was produced by the OPW or a local trust, ie who is/was responsible for renovating and running the workhouse museum. I'm surprised that no logo seems to appear on the sign (unless I missed it, sorry rushing out the door). RashersTierney (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * TBH, Rash, I don't know. I assumed it was the OPW. Sarah777 (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops
You uploaded File:IMG Rosenallis3228.jpg and used it in the Rosenallis article. You uploaded exactly the same image to Geograph where you claim that it is of Clonaslee. Which is correct? &mdash; RHaworth 22:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooops indeed! Good to see you keeping a sharp eye on me RH. Rosenallis is correct, so Wikipedians worldwide can relax. But now I must make a humble adjustment at Geograph and, frankly, humility isn't my style ;) Sarah777 (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you ain't humble Sarah, you'll never be able to put your hand in the hand of the Man from Galilee!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking on the bright side - I get a First Geograph point for Rosenallis as well! Sarah777 (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Celtic High Holy Day
Happy Bealtaine to you!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

List of events named massacres
Hi, you are named on the talk page as actively involved with this article: RfC please here []. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

National Roads in Ireland
Hey, I've done some editing lately. And I placed the route shield in the Template for national routes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:National_roads_in_Ireland I like it, you can now click the image to get to each route, however someone unregistered has already undone it, tell me what you think.

In the mean time I've fixed all the route markers to look the same. And I've done regional roads markers R101 to R299 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_road —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limbo-Messiah (talk • contribs) 19:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice work Limbo! Looks great - I know Sswonk did a lot of work on this. Is it easy to add the map to the templates - eg the M9 template? Regards Sarah777 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

O Pioneers!
Sauntered in to the project today after a long spell away, just curious about Jimbo Wales' latest version of Hamlet? Who knows. Anyway, I saw something at the Village Pump about maps, and decided to post a link to it over here on Sarah777's talk – and here I was met with this topic. Links to the VP will be found at the bottom of this subsection.

To Sarah's question above regarding ease of adding Éire infobox maps: yes. It isn't documented, but I did mention how to do that many moons ago when we worked together to develop the motorway infobox maps; adding is trivial, I just did so for M9. It's just a matter of adding "map = yes" among the infobox code, check this diff. That method is only available for IRL motorway routebox (q.v.), but could be easily adapted. The map versions we ended up with also are complex in that they use an imagemap to link to all of the other routes within the map and also the major municipalities.

However, as is often the case with such a pioneering effort, there is also pushback. I myself had reservations about adding maps to some of the infoboxes due to layout and clutter concerns, which is why I thought I had left placing them up to Sarah! I guess there were some language barriers...separated by a common tongue etc. At any rate, below are the recent discussions. I am still staying away from all of the useless bickering and grandstanding, i.e. the entire project.

Current relevant discussions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Maps_in_infoboxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Clickable_maps

"Clickable" in the second link is not used in the same sense as with our imagemaps in Irish motorway article infoboxes, and I am not going to try to explain since I am not really sure. I may be persuaded to answer an email or two about this, L-M, but I am not active on Wikipedia so you will have to do the work. However, there is some cryptic note in those two linked discussions regarding implementation of Open Street Map within WP (?) so it all may be moot. Personally, I like how the motorway maps turned out... Sswonk (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE

I added documentation to the IRL motorway routebox, hoping to help anyone who wants to continue the work and edit it in the future, please put an eye on the documentation to make sure the wording is correct and intent accurate - thanks and ciao - Sswonk (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza Flotilla Massacre
Hi Sarah, I'm writing to ask that you try to contribute positively to the discussion page of the Gaza Flotilla Clash. Currently you are expressing your opinion about the topic but not discussing how to improve the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. While I respect your opinion please limit your input to how the article can be improved. Thank you. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought I was rather clear about the changes I'd make. I have pointed out your (doubtless unconscious) use of loaded language. No? Sarah777 (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies if I accidentally posted something to your User page. I thought I had limited myself to your discussion page.  Zuchinni one (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't. I'm going to abandon my attempts to introduce some balance to the Flotilla Massacre article - too dangerous. I'd be safer on one of those boats. Sarah777 (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We've had our disagreements in the past (during an episode which I wouldn't regard as being remotely near "my finest hour"), but I'd sincerely hope that you don't abandon this article. Yes, it's a POV nightmare, but to my mind that's all the more reason to stay involved and to keep challenging POV. I'll understand if you wish to revert this comment, and I won't return if that's what you wish. TFOWRidle vapourings 10:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I guess you're right. The bias is shocking. And I don't see any of my plethora of Admin "watchers" and "minders" rushing to balance it. Sarah777 (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW; I can't even remember having a row with you under your earlier name! I'm not a grudge holder - except if I'm blocked wrongly by some Admin. Then my memory is as long as the Mississippi. Sarah777 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "This flag once was red", if that helps. It was a dispute about BigDunc (?), if I remember correctly. I was ramming the rightiness of a block down his throat. I can't remember what the block was for, or whether there was any rightiness to it. Or why I felt it important to get involved in the first place. Or why I was so surprised there would be a negative reaction to my "helpful" words... TFOWRidle vapourings 18:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Bolding alternative names...
I think your edit here (while otherwise fine) should have "Operation Sea Breeze" in bold, per WP:LEAD. Mind you, I also believe that other commonly used names should be in the lead... TFOWRidle vapourings 11:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if Operation Sea Breeze is to be bolded then so, obviously, should Gaza Flotilla Massacre, a far more common name. Sarah777 (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm all for the common names. I guess Operation Sea Breeze must be common in Israel; other common names are certainly appropriate here. TFOWRidle vapourings 22:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a little vague - it's getting late. What I'm getting at is, yes, I do think common names (like "Gaza Flotilla Massacre", if appropriately sourced etc) should be in the lead, bolded. I've stated that on the talk page, and it seems to be sinking in that there's policy behind it. But the policy stuff needs constantly pushing, or it gets forgotten and turned into horse-trading instead. So... what I'm really saying is, another voice on the talk page pushing policy - and "Gaza Flotilla Massacre" - would be appreciated. TFOWRidle vapourings 22:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I read the Israeli press, even the J Post - nobody mentioned "Sea Breeze" till the PR-disaster-mitigation-goons got on the job. Of course, while their efforts to spin the brutal massacre cuts no ice in the world in general, their target audience is the Fox News befuddled masses of white Middle America - who, surveys show, believe in aliens; yet think the Bible is literal - and can't find the US on a map. Remember, seriously clever folk like the Germans fell in great numbers for Goebbels "Big Lies". So, no real surprise dumbed-down Americans are even easier fodder. Back on topic: I have issues with "undue weight" being given to official Israeli propaganda in the article. Per policy. Sarah777 (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

All eyes on the Rachel Corrie
The aid vessel approaching the illegal blockade of Gaza - not the brave American women we remember today. Sarah777 (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean MV Rachel Corrie? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 07:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant - the ship trying to run the criminal blockade. Sarah777 (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And in the midst of this I'm under pressure to create an article on the R410 road. I keep meaning to get around to it. Sarah777 (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, in relation to the Flotilla Massacre article I am giving up this time. I made three utterly correct and WP:NPOV adjustments to the "lede" as the Americans call it and is was buried is a tsunami of hyper-Israei/American nationalism. (And think how "against" nationalism the Wiki-"liberals" claim to be!) The lead is now a series of Israeli PR hand-outs strung together. Frankly, Red Flag, attempting to fix this is pointless. As I predicted here to considerable criticism the Western Bias on Wiki is attracting increasing comment in the non-Anglosphere meeja and on the net. I suppose the US/Israeli editors will not be happy till the articles all read like handouts from Washington/Tel Aviv and nobody outside the Bubble treats them any more seriously than they'd currently treat the latest emission from the British National Party. A 'those whom the Gods intend to destroy they first make mad' thingy. Sarah777 (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess it is still worth developing the Irish articles because the material can be moved lock, stock and barrel to whatever emerges to replace the American Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Could be worse. Ever been on Conservapedia?  Makes my eyes bleed. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the issue of identity in these cases, that is what is Wikipedia to be, an NPOV counterpoint to news outlets or a free-for-all compendium of world-wide reaction? I sort of lost interest in the entire "breaking news" aspect of this project when the Balloon boy hoax was being actively edited in October 2009. For example, I look at this history listing of the first 500 edits and say, pun firmly intended, "Who gives a Flying Fuck?!" You know how in churches and chapels there is often a glassed-in area to hold young families to keep crying babies and shrieking toddlers from disrupting Father Mike and his crew? Maybe that, and flagged revisions, would help here, but then there's the issue of who's doing the flagging... point being, there is an awful lot of news in the world, this is an encyclopedia or at least claims to be. Chaos really reigns regarding what exactly the definition of WP's mission should be, and how to keep the peace within it. Irish roads are a much less fluid topic to write about, eh, but even there you will get an argument, eh? Easiest to avoid being a moth to the flame and stay away all together, or is it... As for the Conservapedia, as Sarah correctly suggests below, Wikipedia is not liberal. The crying is from the neanderthal right, where women should "stop prattling", Deepwater Horizon is a business problem, global warming and evolution are myths and Wikipedia! Spreads! Lies! The world sucks a lot these days. These same conservatives should be most closely identified with the islamist pigs they agree with on "God's" way to define the world. Yet, they are the first to suggest anyone who threatens their interests, including Hamas and other groups, are terrorists. Happy D-Day. Sswonk (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I never actually saw the glassed-in areas - but then I'm what I'd call a "Cultural Catholic". Y'know, a Catholic without the religion! So for all I know they might have noise abatment mneasures in the local church. I'd have to ask one of the old folk or Polish immigrants - my peers don't pray :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)




 * I realise from reading the Massacre talk page (to take a tiny example) that even the self-imagined "liberal" US nationalists that dominate Wiki are regarded as "socialists" (and worse) by the Lunatic Right that dominates America! Check this if you doubt the ethnic cleansing intentions of our friends: [Grabbing more land in Palestine]. No wonder Hamas have some nasty stuff in their charter! Sarah777 (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sarah, you are an experienced editor. I hope you will reconsider giving up on the Flotilla article and join in discussions etc. Many of the editors now active have been previously blocked for POV-pushing, your voice for policy-compliant edits would be most welcome. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a numbers game when 1rr looms (or even when it doesn't!) The chances of me getting too absorbed in the fray and being blocked are too high. Looking at the article it really exposes the flaws with the Wiki approach to "balance" and ridicules our NPOV claim. What is required here is Management inititive. But they prefer to leave NPOV to the whims of the mob. Of course, IMHO, that's because the mob reflects the views of the management - more or less. Sarah777 (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * On the bright side, when I get around to writing the stub for the R410 road I can be fairly confident it won't attract the running dogs of Western Imperialism. Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey! Look at that picture of Richmond after the American Civil War. Looks a bit like Gaza today. Except the South wasn't deprived of food, cement, medical supplies after the war. Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course I guess The South was defeated, crushed. Hamas weren't. So now we get the collective punishment. A Nazi tactic, perfected in occupied Europe. Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The south was totally crushed and defeated; it was also left with a devastating poverty and a deep hatred against Northerners. Even today many southerners do not trust the government. My mother was a southerner. Her grandfather, and two of her great-grandfathers fought in the War of Northern Aggression. (One of the latter two was killed, the other wounded). Many Irish fought on both sides. A lot of Irish were forcibly conscripted, whereas many Confederate officers were actually Irish-born or the sons of Irish immigrants.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Can't say I'd have much empathy with a society that maintained slavery - however chivalrous the gentlemen! Sarah777 (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sarah, don't buy JB's boilerplate apologist tripe. What she has written wreaks of the worst of what is left of the pathetic Confederacy, a society completely reliant on bible based racism and slavery. There is no justification or explanation that exonerates them and they were devastated because they refused to accept any other outcome due to their own stupid beliefs. End of story. For example, "You'd be surprised at how many free blacks actually owned slaves themselves." About as many North Koreans own Mercedes. I lived in the south over two decades, there is no doubt that statement is akin to the same near-fascist crap that comes from the few die-hard traditional white supremacists who are still there. In fact it is probably the closest thing to a BNP screed you will ever read on this page. It is complete crap, and you needn't even be polite in rejecting it. Sswonk (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all white southerners owned slaves (the percentage is quite small), and not all blacks in the south were slaves. You'd be surprised at how many free blacks actually owned slaves themselves. There were parts of the south, such as Northern Arkansas (the Ozarks), which reluctantly joined the Confederacy as the white people there had no slaves, and felt the fight didn't concern them. States rights was more of an issue than slavery.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * States rights was more of an issue than slavery - but...the "States rights" at issue was the right to be slave states! Sarah777 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jeanne, I am trying to avoid a pissing match by apologizing up front if you find what I have written to be a personal attack. WP:NPA is not what I am into at all. But my own background and experience had me reacting immediately to what you wrote as being extremely offensive and plainly wrong. For your knowledge, upon reading it I hadn't been quite as angry in some time. I do respect your efforts and understand it takes many types of people to spin the globe. However, I did live in both Florida and Virginia for over two decades and fought many battles on what I consider to be the good side of the issue of the legacy of Confederacy. My high school in Virginia was segregated up until two years before I began attending. There was no such thing as "separate but equal" in practice, it only existed as that cynical attempt to continue the racist practices of the southern states. There is no good defense for such attempts, anywhere. It is not an issue I feel is worthy of debate, as I wrote above the platitudes you give to the long-defeated pre-war southern culture and convoluted logic used to promote it absolutely turns my stomach. Excuse me if you still want to argue about it, however I do indeed find support for that system as offensive as I do opinions that state the Holocaust never happened; I don't feel as though I need to say anything further. Sswonk (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do consider this to be a personal attack as I was clearly not trying to offer platitudes or justify the heinous practice of slavery nor the repressive Jim Crow laws. The fact of the matter is that some white liberals are always ready to rise up and accuse another white person of racism, when that person was merely stating the FACTS. For instance, it was a FACT that many whites did not own slaves and joined the Confederacy out of peer/family pressure or to defend what they considered to be a federal infringement against states rights. Again, I'm not trying to justify anything, only EXPLAIN (big difference); it was also a FACT that many places in the south didn't have slaves as part of their population (how is this offensive to say this?), another FACT: not all black people were slaves; there were many free black communities, and quite a few blacks owned slaves themselves (see the articles on Slavery in the United States, Anthony Johnson (American Colonial) as well as the excellent article on African-American History). It's funny that I could have a similar conversation with a black person and the latter wouldn't get offended, yet another white starts seeking out hidden nuances of racism where none existed. By the way, I lived in California where segregation was practised up until 1970. Slavery was first legalised in the northern state of Massachusetts in 1641. Some of the worst recent racist attacks made against African-Americans have occurred in the north- the 1980s racist murder in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn instantly springs to mind. To me, Sswonk you chose to misread my comments in order to launch an attack against me. It was wrong of you and I am deeply offended and hurt. I shall not comment on this page further as I don't wish to be labelled something that I am not. I like and respect you, Sarah, but I won't post here anymore as I am clearly not welcome by certain editors. PS, Sswonk, you brought up the Bible. For your information, I never read the Bible-at least not the Christian one.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, you're right on a few points to be sure, no one is perfect. I have to head to work so don't have the requisite time to refute everyplace you're not. The divide between right and left is so entrenched over so many topics that we could piss and spit all day every day for the rest of 2010, minimum. The fundamental human rights denied to blacks by southern culture up to and including the early nineteen seventies represent the most damning and undeniable facts. Language can be used to color California, and Massachusetts, and New York as part and parcel to this institutionalized racism, however citing mere pockets of segregation (CA), ignoring the Massachusetts Constitution which in 1780 declared slavery illegal in advance of nearly every other jurisdiction in the world, and using anecdotal evidence of northern racism (Yusef Hawkins) pale very quickly when the overwhelming history of southern racism is examined. "States' Rights" is a euphemism used in justification and apology for fighting the war. Slavery was the "right" the southern states were protecting for themselves. I'm happy to work to spread that truth, but can't stand by when some bucolic vision of the south, involving only a few slave owners, free blacks owning their own kind in harmony with this racist society and downplaying of the crushing weight of racism born to this day as the result of slavery in favor of the legal argument of state vs. federal powers are promoted as a defense of the Confederacy. It is extremely offensive, and neither I nor anyone else needs to be black to be offended. Have a nice day. Sswonk (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.church-acoustics.com/cryroom.htm – I'm placing this down here to avoid the link getting lost above. Might be an American thing, certainly appears to be part of an industry. Gotta love the link with the little picture of the sun bursting through the clouds on the left side of that page, with the words "How to Get Started"... profoundly silly?

I spent many years living within an hour of Richmond, and two actually living in the city. It took a lot less time for Richmond and also Atlanta to recover from being destroyed than it did Petersburg, Virginia just down the road. In fact, on a trip about three years ago we stopped to find the visitor center at Petersburg near the Sycamore Street downtown area. It was a very eerie scene, blocks of shuttered buildings near an abandoned rail station. During the middle of a warm pleasant day hardly a person was in sight. I felt like I was in a ghost town, quite jarring when comparing it to rest of the noisy crowded cities to the north along the Atlantic coast/I-95 corridor. The war in some ways is still in existence, at least personally there is a sense, an atmosphere about it. Certainly just as you cross the James River going south one starts to see many more examples of Confederate symbolism (flags, bumper stickers). It is a border of sorts, difficult to describe. I've learned and am learning about what that feeling must be like in parts of your country as well, and really would not want to have the experience in Gaza. "The Cause" is the title of episode one of Ken Burns' film — interesting and spooky that the articles linked to the phrase The Cause seem to be in direct opposition, and both links at that dab page refer to Ireland. Sswonk (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a Marxist, of the Groucho kind. Humour is the best way. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We should never shrink from honest dispute, G'Day. Neither Jeanne nor Sswonk are unwelcome here though on this one I'm with Sswonk. That John Brown was against slavery or some black guy had slaves is irrelevant - slavery is evil, regardless of the colour of the slave/master. The fact that I sympathise with Palestinians does not mean I somehow ignore Arab slave traders any more than does the fact that there were Arab slave traders in any way justify the ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Ireland was bedeviled by Irish gombeens doing the invaders work and profiting from it. Quislings are ten a penny. As Ghandi said, no Empire in history could exist without it's local stooges - (even if it subsequently eradicates them too when their job is done, in a kind of poetic "justice"). Sarah777 (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Over a lot of years my sympathies have also been with the Palestinians, and although my sympathies haven't changed much I have become less and less interested in the middle east problem. There is hardly a day that goes by that there isn't a news story on it, and I'm not just talking of the last few days, I'm talking years of it. Quite frankly, I don't see any solution to the problem happening anytime soon, if ever. As for Quislings, tell me about it. Jack forbes (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I could never understand why news shows (particularly CNN) always describe anything about the Mid-East problems as Breaking News. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are "Breaking News" stories all over the world that don't get the same coverage. I could prattle on about the reasons for so much coverage in the American media, but suffice to say that the US have a big stake in what's happening there. One thing that puzzles me though (well, there's lot's really), why is there a Labour Friends of Israel lobby group and none for Palestine. Is there no-one willing to be friends with poor old Palestine? Jack forbes (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Folks, this is a trans-generational issue. If the Israelis can go back 2,000 years to justify land-grabbing and ethnic cleansing the Islamic world won't have much problem going back to 1948 or 1967 or 2006! The middle east is more likely to trigger Armageddon than anywhere else - that's why it captures international interest. As US global dominance declines so does it's ability to keep Arab and Muslim views on Palestine in check by imposing puppet regimes and military assaults where it can't impose a local Quisling. Without the US, Israel couldn't survive without serious compromise with the Palestinians. Despite the bluster, they know that and also know that the US is weakening (largely because of it's overstretch in support of Israel). Ironically. Sarah777 (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be weakening a little, but they won't stop supporting Israel. Jack forbes (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A bit?! Its geopolitical position has collapsed before our eyes since the invasion of Iraq just over 7 years ago - economically and strategically. And the cause can all be traced back to its fanatical support for Israel and some endemic hyper-nationalism. If the US leaders continue to chain themselves to a policy that requires bleeding to death while attempting to dominate the entire Muslim world the Chinese, Russians, Indians, Latin Americans and maybe even the Europeans will stand by like a pack of vultures waiting to feast on the carcass. My biggest fear is that the carcas is all nuked-up and might decide to go out with a bang rather than start over - like the Russians did. Remember, the leaders in the Pentagon/Israel are probably psychotic and will have nothing to lose at the end of the day. However, we should never let fear of nuclear oblivion deter us from the path of righteousness - they don't! We're all Strangeloves now - yeeeeeeehah! :) Sarah777 (talk) 07:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I just hope no vultures are waiting to feast on my carass. Hmm.... perhaps it's time I went on a diet and returned to my pre-Millenium figure when I wore a size 10 (UK) dress, as nobody will find much flesh to devour. Hee hee hee hee hee--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To the ride-through-the-skies-on-a-fat-boy-bomb imagery of Dr. Strangelove, I'll add this actual passage (cited!) from Henry Adams, written to his brother after the famous Civil War naval battle at Hampton Roads:
 * "You may think all this nonsense, but I tell you these are great times. Man has mounted science, and is now run away with. I firmly believe that before many centuries more, science will be the master of man. The engines he will have invented will be beyond his strength to control. Someday, science shall have the existence of mankind in its power, and the human race commit suicide by blowing up the world. Not only shall we be able to cruize in space, but I'll be hanged if I see any reason why some future generation shouldn't walk off like a beetle with the world on its back, or give it another rotary motion so that every zone should receive in turn its due portion of heat and light." Henry Adams, 1862. source
 * There's an odd mix of optimism and fatalism there, I'll have to read more of the man and his times. I found the quote in the companion book to Ken Burns' film, which I mentioned above. Raining hubris. We'll never know how far down Bush took us. Pity. (Suppressing a smirk). Sswonk (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

From For What It's Worth to Imagine ...
Hi Sarah, Jack, Jeanne, Once, GD and others. You know, I really have gotten mellower lately even though I can get riled at times. If my country really is as bad off PR wise as you see it, Sarah still you do show that you understand millions who live here are individually at opposites with the events that have lead to that perception in Western Europe and Canada. I am at a loss to go further and take up space on your page about that, so for what it's worth I felt it important to post a link to this op-ed piece from today's New York Times. Maybe even the other song title I linked in the header of this topic, Imagine, can be used to point out the folly of sloganeering and using rock star references (even as John Lennon was more than just that) – the feeling Lennon had about it all is still very easy to understand. So let's wish and work for peace, or at least not to hurt each other. I'm not watching the US - England football today, I'm not really a fan of the sport. Primates are famous game players, it's a mark of intelligence among members of the animal kingdom. Games are an improvement over war. I hope some day Palestine and Israel will strive to meet that way, playing, and shake hands after. Sswonk (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fully understand that individuals in the US differ as they do everywhere. It's the balance of numbers and cultural conditioning that produces the different "mainstream" views in different places. The views expressed in that article in the NYT would be common in the Conservative mainstream in Europe, never mind "left" or "liberal" people. Yet I suspect it is a minority view in the US. The NYT is regarded as a "leftist" paper in the US - in Ireland and Europe it's foreign policy editorial positions would place it on the right (it supported the invasion of Iraq and is a cheerleader for Israel). As for football, I was disappointed that the USA actually didn't beat England - but that is merely a conditioned response! I can't help it any more than an American redneck can help being...well....a redneck :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)




 * Yeah, of course you have that understanding, that wasn't the intent. The potential for people not to understand the shorthand phrases i.e. "Yanks, the US, America" etc. might be problematic. I tend to avoid lumping Europe, or Ireland for that matter, into a single bowl. After all, Sinn Féin ain't Fianna Fáil, I reckon'. I would definitely fall into the former. The thing that surprised me is that I brought in a New York paper, us Bostonians have our favorite nemesis sports teams to root against down there in New Amsterdam, the morons :). But the columnist is definitely a leftist's leftist here, I'll concede that. Look out, keep going left, we might spy some of the righties start to appear over the curve of the earth. You've no doubt heard of plausible deniability, there was an element of that in the buildup to "Get Saddam 2.0", executive lies to Congress, etc.—the papers all need to do a better job. 9/11 really knocked us for a loop, I spent that morning on a very scared subway train to my 11AM job, located where I could see the runway off which Mr. Atta et al. departed. It took us a while to get over that day. Sswonk (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sarah, you seem to forget that up until fairly recently most European nations were decidedly backwards compared to America in many respects. For instance, when I lived in Ireland in the 1980s divorce was a taboo subject-when I mentioned the fact that my Irish Catholic aunt who lived in California had been married 4 times, people blanched in horror; when I first arrived in Italy, women were expected to stay home, clean all day while men had all the fun (here in southern Italy it's still pretty much that way); American women from the military base where I worked were regarded as "wild" because they sunbathed outside in their gardens and drank beer (Oh the horror), and allowed their children to play barefoot. I know plenty of parents here who take their kids out of school at 14 to work in the family business with the excuse that "it'll teach them a trade". Hmm...what if the kid doesn't want to spend his or her life slicing meat and is too ignorant to fill out an application form due to lack of basic education. My house in California was full of books, here in Italy it's the rare house that has books. I thought the match last night was sadly lacklustre. The English, despite their explosive beginning, fizzled out shortly afterwards, and the Americans were unspectacular, notwithstanding the pleasure of watching Carlos Bocanegra and Landon Donovan. I'm annoyed Ireland didn't make it to the World Cup.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeanne. I'm not "forgetting" anything - just observing! There was huge variation in Europe - the Scandinavians were way ahead of America in the areas you mention; the Catholic countries were slower to change. But my issue isn't with how countries run their internal affairs - that's their own business. It's when they force their policies on other countries with extreme violence that I get engaged. Catholic Ireland never did that and Italy gave it up after Mussolini was strung up from a handy lamppost! Sarah777 (talk) 06:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As for books I have Italian relatives and American relatives and don't regard either as more "literate" than the other. But I'd regard both as somewhat behind Ireland when it comes to book reading. I think there are stats to support this observation. I'm not too annoyed that Ireland didn't reach the WC - if we'd played better in the Croke Park leg of the play-off we wouldn't have had to go to Paris looking for a win. But we were brutal in the first leg. Argentina lookin' good - I'd love to see Messi and Maradonna do it; with or without the hand of God! Sarah777 (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that the Irish are leaders in the readers stakes, along with the Germans. Don't forget my dad was Irish-he was an avid reader! I've a photo of his grandmother who lived through the Famine and she has a book in her lap. My whole family are bookworms. I also agree about Scandinavia, we might add Holland to that as well. Germany I would say is less conservative than the USA, although, you'll have to remember that I come from Los Angeles-not to far from Venice Beach, so my observations of American mores would be different from those made by a midwesterner or someone from rural Kentucky! I know Swwonk would agree with me here. Oh, Sarah, did you see how good Maradona looks now?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah - he looks great! Sarah777 (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent Lead edit
Hi Sarah,

Would you mind tweaking your recent edit to the lead to make it clear that the events took place on the Mavi Marmara. The previous ordering made that clear, but your edit made it less so.

Also you may want to avoid strong POV language like "killers" in the comments since that is likely to get attention from people you disagree with you. Your edits have a better chance of remaining if you just stick with the facts about what you changed.

Cheers,

Zuchinni one (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. But isn't somebody who kills someone a "killer"?? Sarah777 (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it would depend on the circumstances of the killing. A person who murders someone is a killer; however, if a woman were to kill her abusive husband in self-defence it would not be apt to describe her as a killer. Soldiers aren't called killers either, even if they do literaly kill people.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Soldiers are trained killers - even if they don't kill anyone. Sarah777 (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They sure are, remember Full Metal Jacket?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good Lord no - that guy looks like my brother! Sarah777 (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a brother who looks like Carlos Bocanegra?!!! Any plans to turn your family home into a B&B?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * B&B? Can't see it as a money-spinner. The brother to which I refer lives in Galway! He claims he is studying but I've never detected much evidence of cranial activity from that quarter :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza journey of MV Rachel Corrie
This edit is on many places against how wiki tags should be used. I have reverted your edit and hope you have good explanation before doing such an edit again. --Kslotte (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume your intention was to add only the picture and the destructive things was a mistake. I have put back the picture.


 * Yep - only intended to add the picture - not sure how I did all that. Sarah777 (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bluewater


This makes a great screen saver. Sarah777 (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions sought
I'd like to know what you, Sarah and Swwonk think about the JFK assassination? Who do you think had a hand in it and WHY? This should be an interesting debate. Thanks in advance, Sarah for daring to host such a flaming topic at your venue.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Seriously though, I imagine for Sarah JFK might be one big zzzzzzz...—I am not really passionate about it. Someone asked me about it last week as a matter of fact. I'll reiterate what I said then, that I think the hidden hand of spooks who think they are the only people smart enough to run the world, within the CIA and some loosely defined secret cabal, "helped" Oswald along. He was a patsy for them, but he did commit the killing. There weren't other gunmen, which a large majority of conspiracy theorists contend—the evidence is overwhelming that the shots all came from above. The Kennedys made enemies in part because they were wealthy and connected but thumbed their noses at the "wrong" people. A lot more than one man died, people put so much hope in to him. There is the Jesus story arc to compare it to. Jesus, Jeanne, I gave you a clue but this is really a third rail. Maybe Sarah would have more to say about the general topic of humans allowing hero worship to dictate the way problems are solved. Sswonk (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to get me killed? And I'm sure those footballers are luscious to you, however I don't see what they have to do with geopolitical discourse >)
 * Have you ever been inside the TSBD? If so, I'd say you'd probably change your mind about Oswald having been the lone gunman. To me, the killing of Officer JD Tippitt is the most perplexing and provides the key to Oswald not having acted alone. I think the Vietnam War played a large part in Kennedy's demise.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Vietman had hardly started when JFK died. I do know it was a hunoumgously traumatic event in Ireland back in 1963 and was followed by a generation of the famous Sacred Heart Lamp with the twin photos of JFK and the Pope. He was very charismatic. I'd reckon Lee Harvey Oswald shot him. As to who might have paid LHO (if anyone) - the list of possible suspects is so long that speculation is futile! Sarah777 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, the atmosphere in Texas and the deep south at that stage against northern "liberals" (a Roman Catholic to boot!) talking about voting rights, guns and so on, and so on, was very ripe for helping such a cause. But, that atmosphere only helped, and finding out exactly who, be it the mob or a shadow cabal government of off-the-chart folks like we saw in Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, that will be indeed futile. I think Oswald shot Tippet because he was freaking out, probably because he had been promised an escape plane to Mexico with assistance but they left him to hang out to dry. Who knows exactly how much he told the Dallas cops or federal investigators, what they believed of it, and how much of it all has been disappeared? I think for my part allowing the events as they occurred to be part of history and focusing on what is going on now will keep me a bit saner. I did find it troubling that some of the far right attitude against Obama, as well as the hopes hung on him by many, were eerily similar. You know that line about those not remembering history being condemned to repeat it... Reagan was the last president that had a feverish following, and the only one between JFK and Obama. To me, fighting a large, multi-headed force like corporate greed and monolithic media thought control are not going to be best accomplished by one man. How about how the Democrats fought Nixon because they thought he was evil, a crook who would use the government against its own people, and it turns out they were right, there was a vast conspiracy under his guidance against them? And how the only like cause from the other side has been to use millions of dollars and waste thousands of hours to attempt to remove Bill Clinton from office for lying about his unfortunate use of a White House vestibule and the not-in-the-job-description services of an intern, who apparently was hot for him? The priorities, the priorities. Still, good topic. I just have thought a lot about it and think that Oswald did it, the other gunmen theories that prevail are a wild goose chase. Sswonk (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mostly to Jeanne, however Sarah I remember commenting on the papal pictures in every home which I saw in The Commitments, which you recommended seeing to me upon my asking about realistic depictions of daily life in Ireland. Some Catholics who actually go to church still practice that here, and it's all just personal experience anyway but for the most here, people have given up on the Jesus, Pope and Kennedy iconography in modern times. It did happen worldwide with JFK, he was on many countries stamps, peoples dining room walls, and so on. But perhaps greater than his life, his death and then the following of RFK and MLK in 1968 turned many people off to the entire concept of relying on heroic, beatific individuals to save them. This is of course not the reason you placed the image of Mr. Messi above, heh heh. You see my point about the difference in level of Catholicism there and here though, I trust. Now JB, I see you have typed "Swwonk" more than once, referring to me I think. It's two esses, not two doubleyous thanks. It's from my first initial and last name, you can use "S" or "Steve" if you want; Sarah and anyone else, you too. Those work in our talk page conversations here but if you want to refer to "me: the username" outside, best to use Sswonk "formally". Jesus, it is just us but I think the open, public nature of the conversation would call for some precision there. OK, so no I have not been to Texas, thank god. Kidding, I am sure it is fine but in fact I haven't been west of Brookfield Zoo—I don't count being in the air on approach to Chicago. Amazing, I've lived a lot of places but haven't ventured across the Mississippi as yet. I have however seen many different accounts of the assassination, including having the complete Warren Commission report in the house as a kid and several different network and cable channel investigations. LHO was an excellent marksman, and knowing what I do about Annie Oakley I see no reason to doubt that he could have been as quick and accurate as the Zapruder film shows he must have been. The film by Oliver Stone really had the negative effect of making the conspiracy theories involving multiple gunmen seem less likely, and Jim Garrison was not the person Kevin Costner portrayed. But Garrison and others did continue to force the question of the odd parts of Oswald's background.
 * Sswonk (A-ha! Finally got it right), you wrote a very intelligent, well-thought answer. I agree with your bit about Oswald freaking out. I think he was meant to meet his connection inside the Texas Theatre and instead Nick McDonald and crew turn up. However, if you ever go up to the 6th floor inside the TSBD, you will see how difficult it would have been for Lee to have got off three shots in 8 seconds time, especially as the road is curving, it was a moving target and the oak tree would have lkely deflected some of the bullets. Another thing, which people seem to forget is that Lee was a very high-strung guy; he wasn't able to drive a car on that account, yet he was able to perform so many feats in 90 seconds time (following the fatal head shot): wipe down the rifle, wipe the prints off the window (it was strangely the only window open on the 6th floor and the Secret Service didn't notice it as the motorcade was approaching the corner of Houston and Elm?), somehow move or climb over the nest of heavy boxes, sprint across the floor from the window to the stairwell, after taking more time to carefully conceal the Carcano between boxes, walk down four flights of stairs without being seen, then t appear calm and breathing normally by Officer Baker (all in 90 seconds time!). Then he takes a city BUS to get away, gets stuck in traffic, takes a taxi to his boarding house (only half an hour since the shooting), gets his pistol, waits a bit on the corner, ten minutes later he is in Oak Cliff gunning down Tippit without robbing him (Lee left his cash for Marina at the boarding house). He then goes inside the theatre without paying and is arrested. If he had acted alone why wouldn't he have robbed the cop, and then hid out for a while 8not in a cinema where he could be trapped), before taking a bus down to Mexico?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When you think about it - all that could be explained simply by someone helping/paying him to do it. Could have been anyone? A Cuban agent, a Mafia man, a Republican (or other low-life). I'm not convinced he couldn't have done the deed. Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * btw - I do not beleive that Sswonk has not been in Texas or even west of the Mississippi! How could that be? T'would be a bit like me having never been west of the Shannon :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty good at handling skeptics, so try this: all true. Have been to almost all states east of the Mississippi, yet not Wisconsin, eastern Minnesota nor Mississippi itself. However, never in Texas. Or Cali. Or anywhere else west of that zoo I mention. Yep Ontario for a total of 3 days and previous to that one hour each way in Gander, during a late teens trip to France (4 days) Helvetia (1.5 days) et Italia (1 day). Laugh if you want, it is the truth. Sarah, how about you, if you've been west of the Shannon, have you touched 'em all i.e. the 32 Counties of Ireland? Good job if so, and frankly I am not on a mission to reach some of the other states here, it's a lot of work, in a variety of ways including beyond the physical i.e. finding a reason. Sswonk (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep - when I was a a mere 16 I visited Donegal - number 32 on my list - the reason? Like the second guy who reached the summit of Everest "because they were there"! But then Ireland is only the size of an average US state so the mission was not very stretching. You could do it in a day in a car with the new roads. Sarah777 (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (Zeichen 101 - Gefahrstelle, StVO 1970.svgom and dry wit warning) Ireland at 32,595 square miles would rank 40th if added to the list of fifty states. Snowballs have a better likelihood in hell than that addition, we both certainly must agree (discounting a rigid disbelief in hell, and only following the idiom for sake of illustration). Sswonk (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah - but you're counting Alaska. Alaska doesn't count. Take that away and Ireland is probably 25th. Sarah777 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually my last point doesn't make any sense. So we have witnessed a personal first right here on Wiki :) Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A long day albeit. Must look HERE at the AA site and see if it allows enough "vias" to do the calculation. Sarah777 (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sarah, I have a difficult question to put to you: What is your favourite Irish county out of the 32? Now before you answer, all of these factors must needs be taken into consideration: the scenery, the monuments, the talent, historical significance, the locals, the general ambience/atmosphere/vibes of the place, amenities, the ratio of sunshine/rainfall, the craic, the pubs, the crime rate, and the type of music blaring out of shops and open car windows.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wicklow and Dublin. Dead heat. Sarah777 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mine are Dublin, Antrim and Kilkenny. The latter is for Kilkenny Castle (ancestral seat of the Butlers) and Dame Alice Kyteler's House/restaurant which serves the best plaice in the world while combining an authentic creepy medieval atmosphere.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1363 in Ireland
My contempt precludes a response. Sarah777 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind but I thought you could maybe use this
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. John (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks John - I'll study this and see how it works. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your first step on the road to admin-hood? ;-) Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You better hope not Bastun :) Sarah777 (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!
Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I saw that you're a learned person proud to be Irish (I wish I can visit your wonderful country some time soon!), so you understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving your great culture, country, music and language! Slán agat! Capsot (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! On Saturday I'm off for two weeks to sunny Catalonia as it turns out! Sarah777 (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I hope you'll have a nice and pleasant stay there though the weather is not real good right now (let's hope it will be sunny by the time you arrive!), if you had any problems or needed anything just let me know, I'll be glad to help, take care! Capsot (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Generous offer, but whats Sarah got that I don't to merit such 'special attention'? RashersTierney (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sincerity, Rashers, sincerity. Sarah777 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that must be it. RashersTierney (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How to Rollback a Rollback??
Been testing this and it is very good for blatant vandalism. But it seems very fait acompli (as we surrender-monkeys say)....how do you undo a rollback if it turns out to be an error? Sarah777 (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Sarah. I haven't been near your page in a while. Did anyone answer this question for you? If not, just go to the history of the page where you did the rollback and your action will be there with an "undo" button. Just click. My own edit summary for such things is "Oops". Likely you have devised something more erudite. Happy summer. :-) Bielle  (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
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 been involved. Thank you.


 * Wow! First day back at school and the class bully reports me to the teacher! Sarah777 (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop with the incivility, please, Sarah. You know well enough that you're supposed to be commenting on edits, not editors, and I shouldn't have to be reminding you at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed I do know that - but I'd be more inclined to heed the policy if it were enforced on the likes of MickMac - not just me. Justice must be seen to be done or it is not justice. Same goes for the fairness of Wiki policing. Parity of treatment is the acid-test WP:NPOV hereabouts. Sarah777 (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ugh!
I'm not especially prudish but the fornicating flies in the POTD don't go well with the cornflakes:) On a more plesant note in the Irish Times today I noticed an example of common usage that Wikipedians could note: "The voluntary redundancy programme will apply to staff working across the group’s businesses in Ireland, Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK". Not "Republic of" anywhere. (a) Ireland, (b) Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Sarah777 (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia land, you're gonna be stuck with Republic of.., though. That's what happens when ya name your country the same as the island it's on. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No G'Day - that's what happens when British Nationalists (and their cultural cousins like Canadian Subjects of a British Monarch) use their numerical advantage to over-ride WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to give Mies & the Canadian monarchist league, fits? GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cough!* Samoa, Samoan Islands, American Samoa (OK, so "Samoan Islands" is clearly not one island, but to my mind the issue is very similar. And it's impressive that the massed ranks of American editors haven't enforced the obnoxious "Western Samoa" title on Samoa or enforced "Samoa" == Islands). TFOWR</b> 14:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, disputes haven't arisen over the term Irish Sea, which happens to wash on to British shores (aswell as Irish shores). GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tries to look innocent... You mean the Manx Sea. ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 15:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I note, G'Day, you always find this jaded point hilarious - especially all the times you bring it up yourself. Sarah777 (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was called the "Irish Sea" by the British - they can change what they call it if they wish. I don't care as nobody lives in the Sea. It isn't a country. Sarah777 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Those who advocate censorship shall be censored MickMac. Sarah777 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point TFOWR; Samoa and America Samoa can live side by side without American Nationalists feeling the need to change a countries name of Wiki on the grounds that folk will be confused. Of course there probably ain't as many Sun readers in America as in Blighty. So they ain't so easily confused. Sarah777 (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Sarah777.

The Samoan Islands have two political entities upon them. The first is the Independent State of Samoa, and the second is the Territory of American Samoa. The former is an independent country, whereas the latter is not. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Same with Ireland - one sovereign state and one occupied territory. Sarah777 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The view from outside the bubble - Sarah777 (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A positively brilliant link. "It's the psyche, stupid!" Sswonk (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes Sswonky, perspectives differ and truth dies. Sarah777 (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Aye, it was me who made the "Samoan" comment, above. But your point - that Samoan Islands is two entities is precisely why I feel it's applicable to "Ireland": Ireland (Eire) is an independent state, analogous to Samoa, and Northern Ireland is analogous to American Samoa (part of a larger entity: UK and USA respectively). I take no position on whether Northern Ireland and American Samoa are "occupied" (well, I believe all states are "occupied", but my view won't fly on Wikipedia ;-) <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 08:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Antarctica is about the only place not occupied. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

'''
 * I'd bet money I don't have that the Russians and Americans are indeed in occupation of Antarctica! They are everywhere :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Someday, they'll face a penguin rebellion. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo location question
Hi Sarah777, I was looking to kill two birds with one stone and rename your photo File:IMG 0597xx.jpg while moving it to Commons, and I just wanted to check the location is Stepaside, Dublin? XLerate (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, in 2004. The location has changed a bit since then. Sarah777 (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Enniscorthy
Hi, again Sarah! Please recording here pronounciation. Прон (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No mic. Maybe GoodDay will do it. Give us something to giggle at. Sarah777 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ОК, in word Enniscorthy the letter "O" and letter "Y" how pronounce? Прон (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ennis-cor-thee ('cor' as in 'cord' and 'thy' as in "thieves")Sarah777 (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Прон (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

White nose syndrome
On another tack, I would like to mention to you that there is a disease among bats called white nose syndrome which threatens to bring these common and valuable little creatures to extinction within twenty years here in New England. Here is a recent news item on the subject. Things such as this I believe are what can also be called harbingers or omens of a not-so-good future that can be averted by paying attention to what is happening around us. ... oh well, I just think this deserves attention so I sincerely hope you and your readers will find interest; if so inclined, pass the question on to other animal lovers or students of nature: why are the bats dying? Sswonk (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Can't add much to the bat issue, but Elm trees disappeared from Britain and Ireland due to Dutch Elm disease in the space of a few years in the late 1970s and early 1980s. There are no large elms left - it was as common as oak till the disease struck. Apparently this has happened to the elm population in the past (we know this based on pollen samples from Irish bogs) - somehow they recovered. Maybe the bat will find a way. Sarah777 (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually my hope is that science and collective reasoning will make it unnecessary for us to rely on the bat to find his own way, especially if there is a human cause for the spread of the disease and the spectre of extinction for bats here. They certainly are much more significant by close proximity in the phylogeny to us than are trees, which is why I am expressing this concern. I find this latest particular fact about bats, who populate the dusk in their own remarkable way, troubling. Knowing you to be very perceptive and enlightened to the point of being ahead of most people on various subjects, posing the question here seemed to be a good idea. Unless of course you hate bats—don't though, they are very beneficial. Sswonk (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bastun - fact. Editors who were from the RoI or non-unionists from NI voted by two to one against the Wiki abomination re the name of the sovereign state. Of course as the evidence was censored and supressed you can give the anglo-line with a certain smugness. Hiding behind the censor. You are still utterly wrong - on a simple matter of fact. After I produced the analysis we had all manner of folk claiming to be current or former RoI citizens. There was a scurry to amend User Pages which identified people as NI Unionists or British after I pointed out the bias. Sarah777 (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I was hoping you would reiterate that, and I might add that several votes were withdrawn in protest, including my own non-Irish one in support of C, with alternates D or E; once I realized the "default to F" movement and inept "moderation" were serving to push the status quo along to retention, it was already too late. From the IECOLL page, my final choice, C would have an article titled Ireland that begins: "Ireland is a modern independent state, a geographic entity, an historic nation, and a cultural identity, all based on the island of Ireland. (The text here was based loosely on the article on China.)"—I see that treatment of the subject as appropriate and closer to common usage than RoI. Rational editors here should not be in the business of titling articles to avoid bruising the egos of British subjects. England. Scotland. Spain. Italy. France. Ireland. All other attempts to justify the current "Republic of Ireland" title here are convoluted masterpieces of excuse-making nonsense for the former empire. Bastun, it does not matter what you claim a majority of Irish voters—already members of the heavily UK managed project and veterans of being outnumbered in this dispute, who is to say others had not already become thoroughly disillusioned?—it doesn't matter what you say those who bothered to vote supported. What matters is that the wrong choice was made by that method and that the article name should reflect the real world. I understand that there are very deep divisions over conditions on the island, and that I am an outsider when it comes to the country itself. But I do have a lifetime of friendships, thought and reading on the subject to substantiate my view, and it is as stated here. As Sarah might say, I am "outside the bubble" in that respect. To me, the deeper issue is that Sarah's treatment last year and subsequent events have proven to me that wide swaths of this project are pervaded by cynical, childish, sado-technologists who consciously or not make sport of winning such battles without concern for actually doing what is right. Sswonk (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sarah - fact. In an STV vote, you cannot add up all those who voted for some other preference and use that number to say the majority didn't favour the winner.  <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Come on Bastun - what do you mean I cannot - I did! Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, then, you can. But you shouldn't :p  Unless the winner gets > 50% of the vote in the first round, then exactly the same principle would apply to every option. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 06:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * More herbivore waste material removed. Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: Samoa, to be fair to Sarah 'twas me who raised the subject: I have a little familiarity with the topic, based in part on recent ancestors having been part of New Zealand's dirty history and in part from having numerous friends and colleagues who are Tagata Pasifika. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 15:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cowpat removal. Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but for my part I have no intention of trying to show that the history/status/situation of American Samoa compares to Northern Ireland (beyond how we handle disambiguation here on Wikipedia): my goal is to strive for some degree of consistency in article naming, and I believe centuries of history off-wiki isn't particularly relevant to that task. It's an interesting task due to the imbalance of partisan editors, but ultimately it's a task that should be performed without regard to either sides' biases. Which is, of course, why I mentioned American Samoa: despite the imbalance between American editors and Samoan editors we appear to have arrived at a logical result - one in which both countries' articles are named after the countries' respective names, and the geographical entity gets disambiguated. I'm all for consistency, and, better still, I'm all for avoiding unnecessary provocation: islands, by and large, tend not to get annoyed when they get disambiguated; however, countries' citizens, for some reason, do. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 16:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha, I mean Hi, Mick. Per the dab page, "a disciple is a follower and student of a mentor, teacher, or other wise figure." All I am following is my own opinion, I reckon I am nearly twice Sarah's age, although I do find her ability to put into writing what I am thinking a fairly advanced trait, so I give her words of approval and encouragement from time to time. Admit I used a little of Sarah's language above, i.e. bias and the bubble but that was just shorthand on this page. Don't think I'd call anyone here who agrees with you "your disciple", guess you may suspect WP:MEAT even? No, not here. I have thought, long before I spotted Sarah's writing after going to the IECOLL page on wiki-suggestion posted at MoS this time last year, that there is a serious amount of bull and crap and plain bullshit in many parts of the world that can be traced back to the well-intentioned capos of the British Empire. Well before Sarah I think back to James Joyce and George Orwell, Roger Waters and Joe Strummer, John Lydon, Bob Dylan and Neil Young as formative voices of mine generally. I was around when they made "Give Ireland Back to the Irish", and have been grooving to U2 for their entire career. For Sarah777's part, she has a place to gripe about things going here, and I have taken advantage. I have no idea what people like you—who think naming the article 'Ireland' and having another sub-article of 'United Kingdom' called 'Northern Ireland' is impossible—what you folks are on. I only know Tory attitudes and the persistence of monarchy are a couple of completely irrational reasons that this contrived and unnecessary name persists on the Wiki article. In the name of 777, amen. And I also more broadly see those attitudes echoed by arrogant anonymous editors throughout this place, and the comparison of "admin for life" and "the cabal" to the palace intrigues and cronyism of Anglosphere governments is very clear. They may not be working explicitly together, but the behavior patterns here and "in the bubble" are damn similar. Of course that could also be what William Golding was writing about? And I read in the seventies? OK, rant over. Bless you, MM. Let's all work together to find a cure for the topic title. Help the bats. Sswonk (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking of twats - more digested silage removed. Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, some times you can almost see him saying (with those lashy and innocent eyes) "What's a twat?" without seeming either as funny or as sarcastic as either of George Harrison or John Lennon. However, my point in mentioning the song, and I don't think you missed it, is that the name wiki is using isn't the one the country itself uses, and wiki should relent. Sswonk (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the name (or, more accurately, description) used, though, by us, our politicians, our journalists and everyone else when there's a need for disambiguation between Northern Ireland and Ireland (the state), or between the island and the state. Every day.  <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Begging the question. "The fallacy of petitio principii, or 'begging the question', is committed 'when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof.' More specifically, petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise. The fallacy may be committed in various ways." So, "Because people can't tell whether Ireland means Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, or the physical island itself, we here at Wikipedia need to disambiguate." Sorry, asked and answered, begging the question, etc. etc. you are not proving anything, you are assuming your conclusion. Nor has the rest of your reasoning ever made any headway with me. Yes, in the context of laws, courts, visas, work permits, passports, and so on, yes every day the government there uses this term to describe the sovereign part of the island over which it has recognized jurisdiction. Viewed from outside that context, your country is called Ireland in almost every other venue because there is no need to disambiguate, it is quite clear what is meant. And it is also the official English language name of the country. Further, arguing against RoI in this way is not an IDONTLIKEIT fallacy, but support of the continued use of RoI stinks of being just that from the UK point of view, i.e. the British editor who wants to point out that there is still not a 32 county republic called Ireland to his west would rather not have an article about this place as it is called by the name the country and the rest of the world uses in daily speech and writing. I can see that from over here in Quincy, Massachusetts, and I have never been to Ireland nor to Great Britain. Ireland is as clear as can possibly be stated a singular entity and the primary topic in that regard, Northern Ireland and the island itself are secondary topics at best. That is what I feel about it, and I would like to convince persons entertaining both arguments, the "fence sitters", that the title of the present article should be Ireland. Sswonk (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for disturbing the flow here Sswonk/Bastun, but I have zero tolerance for folk who have called for me to be blocked/banned from Wiki; my liberal-mindedness does not extend to facilitating them on this page. Sarah777 (talk)


 * !, and I do mean !. It's your page, I guess most readers will realize what you did, but I can foresee shades of whispers regarding white rabbits.

Really supposed to be about bats, too, somehow the politics got mixed in. Glad I didn't get cleaved. Peace. Sswonk (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes 99! - the ole 'sound-of-the-one-hand-clapping trick'! (As Maxwell Smart would say). Sarah777 (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can say that the choppy waters of my comments seeming to be left to no one above qualify as somewhat "spooky". "Where on your palm is my little line / When you're written in mine / As an old memory?" was how Kate Bush followed the "one hand clapping" phrase, the song "Jig of Life" but I won't link to the lyrics, they will try to sell you ringtones, all of those sites. As for You Tube, uh, à chacun son goût. It's tough to fathom that the album was released 25 years ago. Seems too soon to be that much time. I am worried about the bats, but it looks like it is time to move on. "If just one person out of a hundred is reached, a mind opened, that is a success", I think Joe Strummer might have once said. Sswonk (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My Little Spreadsheet
About a year since that got banished, then userfied. You then soon were dancing blocks around with various admins and we learned of Chillum's former life as "High in BC".

Sycophancy never being a strong suit, I'd like to point out this link: it's not really about the story. What I'm pointing out is that this writer in Los Angeles calls Ireland by the name that everyone knows. Dozens if not hundreds of examples of the common usage in professional journalism, "Ireland" for the country just as in the linked story, are published weekly. There's more proof: as I argued at the polling last year it is common sense that gets shoved under the carpet by the stilted, poorly reasoned arguments that "won", keeping the main article titled ROI for another two years. That was a trap, in hindsight, a vote with too many options and a method that basically guaranteed the status quo outcome. If not for the heavy influence and machinations of UK and anglophile editors, and ambivalence elsewhere, there is no doubt the title would now stand as Ireland.

There is scant credibility left in Wikipedia governance, in spite of the excellent editorial work contributed by many on the articles herein. Ciao for now—I realize I am saying nothing not already well known when it comes to many readers here at User_talk:Sarah777, no harm in trying to reach the fence sitters. Sswonk (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sswonk. We are already getting ready for the next bout in the battle to make Wiki reflect common usage rather than political abusage :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "...the Admins overseeing the vote censored the analysis of the votes which pointed this fact out" which you state :). I had issues with your method at the time—it was however effective. The reactions to your analysis did more than enough to bring the Wiki's true hypocritical core to light. The phrase "Give 'em enough rope, they'll hang themselves" is apt. You're welcome. You get the picture, doubtful however your opponents ever will inside their garden. Must be like using opium, being there. Sswonk (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "If not for the heavy influence and machinations of UK and anglophile editors..." *sigh* Again - a majority of Irish editors favoured Option F, the status quo. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 07:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To be fair, Bastun, I did write in the "..." part of your out-of-context quote, "and ambivalence elsewhere". The gist is that the said influence and machinations and then ambivalence together resulted in retention of the status quo, and that had it been shown to be silly and convoluted not to simply call the article about Ireland by its common-usage name then F would have "lost". So my drumbeat continues, I think you support a silly outcome. No need to explain (at least to me) why you don't think it's silly, I have indeed read what you and RA and others think about it. I disagree, seeing primarily Sarah's take on things as being more truthful. Sswonk (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @bastun *sigh* Given we seem to have to remind each other every few months, and that I sent you the spreadsheet with the raw data, I'm surprised that you're still reacting. I believe it's a fair to make an observation on the affect that the British vote made on the result:
 * 34% of voters were British compared with 17% Irish, 35% Other, 12% unknown.
 * Option F was the majority vote for all national classifications. But this was an STV vote, not a majority vote, so it's interesting but a largely irrelevant fact.  What is relevant is comparison of the scale of the majority
 * 62% majority among British
 * 33% majority among Irish
 * 38% among Other
 * 39% among Unknown
 * So the scale of majority among British voters shows a massive skew away from everyone else. Even the Irish votes are reasonably within 6 points of everyone else.
 * But majority is irrelevant. This was an STV vote.  And among Irish voters using STV, option C won.  Actually, here's a full STV breakdown which I posted previously:
 * All - Winner F, (2nd E) (5th count)
 * British only - Winner F (1st count :-)
 * Irish only - Winner C (5th count)
 * Exclude Irish Votes - Winner F (3rd count)
 * Exclude British Votes - Winner E (5th count)
 * Exclude British and Irish votes - Winner E (5th count)
 * So I believe it isn't an unreasonable comment above to point out the heavy influence that British editors had on the outcome. --HighKing (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, HighKing, for the detailed view on the votes. For me it was easy to see and sense last year while the entire process was, er, proceeding, what these numbers show. Your numbers and Sarah's at the time have shown plainly that the bias exists. Sswonk (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This analysis shows that Option F was the winner counting only Irish voters. Lots of other interesting data on the vote on the associated pages, there, too.  Under Sarah's method of determining a winner (count up all the votes that didn't go to a particular option and declare that they must be against that option), as used in the section above - no option wins... <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you pointing to an analysis dated Aug 8th when the poll didn't close till the middle of September? I reiterate, using the *full* data set, Option C was the winner counting only Irish voters.  And not using Sarah's and anyone elses methods, but by using the correct STV method.  --HighKing (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bull excised at this point. Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Lol. I suppose you'll now explain how weighted averages are used for an STV vote?  Oh wait....  Still, I'm sure you'll find 10 more times today for another hate post.  Still haven't explained why you hate the Irish Mick ... --HighKing (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * More bull excised - I see Mick Mac has difficulty with the English language; folk who advocate censorship on Wiki will be removed from this page. It's such a simple solution really. Maybe someone who can relate to his level of comprehension would explain it to him? Any horse whisperers about? Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are ways to spin everything I guess, but I did not realize Mick that your vote was similar to mine (You CDF and Me CDE). But you did have that F as choice three, so I am not too worried about some of the response I left in the section below seeming to call you an "F" voter. I started at BAF, then moved the same day to BAC once I realized what the implications of keeping the status quo were. That was a lesson learned, but as B and A are probably the most accurate and logical solutions but also the least likely to ever "win" support, in seeking a compromise I ended up closer to where you were. But since very early in the discussion I found that the arguments both against F and supporting a theory of biased sociolinguistic effects as Sarah and others have argued are valid. Every time someone living in Ireland, the sovereign state, wants to edit Wikipedia and wikilink their own country, which throughout the world is called by journalists and authors by the single word "Ireland", they have to type  and for a split second think about why, rather than simply typing  . Shouldn't have to be that way, and the reasons why are mostly supported by biased editors and those not looking deep enough into the implications to care otherwise, at least in my opinion. Sswonk (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sniff sniff, there was a time Sarah, that many visited my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cheer up G'Day. There will be a time again. You just need to get yourself at the centre of some big row. I suggest you try to move the Canada to Her Majesty's Dominion of Canada! Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Giggle giggle, the Canadian Monarchist League wouldn't mind that move. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Her Majesty's Dominion of Canada ... it is the Dominion of Canada (that one got me banned for a year). Take care, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A year! Sacré bleu!Sarah777 (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oui, une-ans, ... je suis un Canadien-Anglais avec un tete-carree! Take care eh, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Pardonnez-moi, mon français n'est pas bonne, mais avez-vous été banni pour avoir tenté de mettre la tête dans un trou rond? 89.241.73.181 (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah....French is such a romantic language, I wish I had learnt more than a few words in school. It must be so fun to seduce a man whispering naughty French words into his quivering ear.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oui Jeanne, je suis d'accord en langue française est une langue belle et romantique et j'attends avec impatience ma séduction. Au revoir - pour l'instant! 89.241.73.181 (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mon Dieu! I understood at least 75% of that. Must be genetic memory. Merci beaucoup to my dearly and long departed great-grandmother Elisabeth Oliveaux!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ireland
I've been thinking carefully about this naming issue Sarah. I am English and believe the national article should be Ireland, not Republic of Ireland. Looking back through the debate and vote, it would appear that the block is Northern Ireland-related and not particularly the "English" as such, although I'm sure you have your own views on that. What I would say is that I can't see any logical reason for the current naming scheme, as clearly both the official UN, US State Dept, EU and other leading international bodies' name for it is Ireland and there is also no reason why this cannot be co-existent with Island of Ireland, Northern Ireland, etc. So any time this debate gets re-opened, let me know and I will be coming into the debate with that viewpoint, which is well supported by all the evidence. Thanks for your time. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sadly (or happily!) there is at least another year to go before we can toss this issue about again. Somebody has thus decreed. And of course you are right, this has nothing to do with the English who are generally (nowadays) a fair-minded people. It is a political hangover from the Imperial past. Sarah777 (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, Sarah, toss it about all you want. Every day. You don't have to "obey" any two year restriction against discussing the naming of this and any article, ever. There isn't any reason to wait, the issue can be forced quickly and the two year ban removed just as easily as it was declared by that somebody. That somebody is just one of those pictured: a scarecrow.




 * At least, that is how I view it. The entire thing can be shown to be silly, and the more folks such as Jamesinderbyshire here speak up about it, the more likely the "official" two year restriction can be shown to be idiotic as well. Sswonk (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Who made the "two year" ruling, is there a diff on that? And what is the support for that in official WP policies? I can't see anything about it in the help files. It is just plain wrong at the moment and so should be fixed, but of course I realise there will be opposition. The facts speak for themselves. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbcom. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * However, two years will be up. There is no harm in setting up a project page to discuss.  Last time the whole thing got trapped into a edit warring and name calling mess that was then put into a premature vote designed to encourage the community to vote for the status quo.  -- Snowded  TALK  10:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly harder to extract logic and common sense in a fraught situation. A long-term project page is a good idea. It's clearly one of several causes of severe friction. There are arguments on both sides, but I do find it odd that Ireland is not Ireland (apparently) on Wikipedia alone. The Georgia disambig page is something I would do away with as well - left to me, the UN state would have priority. At least some of the outcomes of these Wikibattles seem to be based on the numbers of editors with POVs "in play" rather than what makes a consistent, believable, credible international cyclopedia. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorting out Georgia and getting a general rule in place would be a very good starting point. Let me know if you need help -- Snowded  TALK  10:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the best starting point is to set up a project page that calls for official names of nation-states to take priority in article naming. How does one go about setting up such a project? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Find the appropriate master page if there is one, or just set it up as aproject -- Snowded TALK  11:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the "appropriate" master page that's the problem. Also of course, looking at the Georgia debate, I will need 350 determined allies. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Geography project? -- Snowded TALK  11:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting here. Will see how an initial discussion shapes up. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbcom's instructions to wait until September 2011, is best. GoodDay (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess I learned the hard(ish) way, as Rockpocket predicted many moons ago. The chances of Georgia (the country) taking prime spot for the name are zilch the way Wiki is run. "Consensus" is the euphemism they use here for "majority pov" - there are no rules, other than those used to swat minorities and other miscreants. The funny thing is that I think that many of the Wiki establishment actually can't see this! Wikidiots I guess we could call the innocent amongst them :) Sarah777 (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And for their rulings re "troubles related articles" (definition of) and "original research" (definition of) I conclude Arbcom are a crowd of Wikidiots. So block me! Sarah777 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a tough Wikiworld we live in, sometimes. Bye jumpin's though, somebody's gotta do it. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)