![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sarah, I assure you that my intent was not to revert edits with which I have an ideological problem. My revert was done specifically because the previous edit had damaged references and left incomplete text in the article. I said so in my edit summary. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 23:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of
Emo and pasted it into
Emo (music). This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's
history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a
redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the
"Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at
Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at
Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. --
Muchness (
talk)
02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Here Ye, Here Ye! For one week beginning this Very Moment I will refrain from editing any Ireland v Brit Occupiers articles; including but not Exclusively 1641; The Troubles & soforth. Ditto the execrable "List of so-called Maffacres" & soforth. And be Advised that in the Realm of Ye Years in Irelande not a single category shall I create nor even alter howsoever deserveth. The reason for these measures are that the Roads of Irelande; Villages thereof and even the Hills and Streams are currently Bereft of my Attention. Sarah777 ( talk) 23:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope you'll be willing to support my Request for Adminship. Thanks. MurphiaMan ( talk) 12:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I replied to your comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 04:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, do you remember the discussion we had about doing a years in Northern Ireland navigation template based on {{ YearInIrelandNav}}? (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Navigation_template_for_years-in-Ireland_articles)
From what I can see, the discussion petered out when you wanted a better image than Image:NIShape.gif (see right), but I couldn't find one.
I think we both moved on to other issues, but it still seems like a good idea. So I suggest that I create the template with NIShape.gif, which can be replaced with a better image if anyone finds or makes one. Is that OK with you?
Also, I think that we need to decide a colour for the border of the box. I think that neither orange nor green would be appropriate (both would be seen as partisan), and I can't think of a suitable alterantive ... so I suggest the we use the dark blue #000062 as used on the website of the Northern Ireland Executive. I assume that the dark blue colour scheme must have been agreed by the parties in the executive as an acceptable alternative to the colours associated with the various political strands in NI, and that it's therefore as close as we can get to a neutral solution.
I have done a very crude doodle to the right of this text. What do you think of that as a start? (I'll ask Ardefern too). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I decided to be [[WP:BOLD}}, so I have gone ahead and moved it out of userspace (now at {{ YearInNorthernIrelandNav}}), rolled it out on all the year in Northern Ireland articles (see e.g. 1969 in Northern Ireland), and left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Northern_Ireland#Year_in_Northern_Ireland_articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Great job BHG - have looked at 1969 - exceptionally cool. Love it - only hope our other NI punters love it too. Thanks to you and Sarah for all the kind words. No need for barnstars (although very nice to get them) - rather just get on with the work. Ardfern ( talk) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ireland articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
![]() |
6 | 3 | 26 | 29 | 64 | ||
![]() |
2 | 6 | 8 | ||||
![]() |
1 | 11 | 62 | 169 | 243 | ||
B | 29 | 193 | 423 | 793 | 1,438 | ||
C | 29 | 201 | 922 | 4,290 | 1 | 5,443 | |
Start | 1 | 210 | 2,294 | 27,953 | 3 | 30,461 | |
Stub | 3 | 429 | 26,563 | 6 | 7 | 27,008 | |
List | 28 | 315 | 2,927 | 9 | 3,279 | ||
Category | 1 | 5 | 25,947 | 25,953 | |||
Disambig | 1 | 3 | 177 | 181 | |||
File | 175 | 175 | |||||
Portal | 26 | 26 | |||||
Project | 1 | 19 | 20 | ||||
Redirect | 8 | 58 | 945 | 1,492 | 2,503 | ||
Template | 1 | 3,171 | 3,172 | ||||
NA | 3 | 2 | 5 | ||||
Other | 84 | 84 | |||||
Assessed | 66 | 658 | 4,533 | 63,687 | 31,109 | 10 | 100,063 |
Unassessed | 28 | 28 | |||||
Total | 66 | 658 | 4,533 | 63,687 | 31,109 | 38 | 100,091 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 340,889 | Ω = 5.27 |
This table automatically updated itself; see
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ireland articles by quality log for details of the latest changes. Current and past versions of this table (July 2007-present) are stored at
User:Ww2censor/Assessments
Sarah777 (
talk)
22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ireland articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
![]() |
6 | 3 | 26 | 29 | 64 | ||
![]() |
2 | 6 | 8 | ||||
![]() |
1 | 11 | 62 | 169 | 243 | ||
B | 29 | 193 | 423 | 793 | 1,438 | ||
C | 29 | 201 | 922 | 4,290 | 1 | 5,443 | |
Start | 1 | 210 | 2,294 | 27,953 | 3 | 30,461 | |
Stub | 3 | 429 | 26,563 | 6 | 7 | 27,008 | |
List | 28 | 315 | 2,927 | 9 | 3,279 | ||
Category | 1 | 5 | 25,947 | 25,953 | |||
Disambig | 1 | 3 | 177 | 181 | |||
File | 175 | 175 | |||||
Portal | 26 | 26 | |||||
Project | 1 | 19 | 20 | ||||
Redirect | 8 | 58 | 945 | 1,492 | 2,503 | ||
Template | 1 | 3,171 | 3,172 | ||||
NA | 3 | 2 | 5 | ||||
Other | 84 | 84 | |||||
Assessed | 66 | 658 | 4,533 | 63,687 | 31,109 | 10 | 100,063 |
Unassessed | 28 | 28 | |||||
Total | 66 | 658 | 4,533 | 63,687 | 31,109 | 38 | 100,091 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 340,889 | Ω = 5.27 |
This table automatically updated itself; see
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ireland articles by quality log for details of the latest changes. Current and past versions of this table (July 2007-present) are stored at
User:Ww2censor/Assessments
Sarah777 (
talk)
22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, nice photo. -- The.Q (t) (c) 16:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777 I think you posting ( Revision as of 02:40, 16 February 2008) to Talk:List_of_massacres#Alternative_names is unacceptable, please read my reply on that page, [1] and consider if you think your accusation is still appropriate. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 13:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarah. Thanks for taking interest in the Great Book of Lecan article I created some time ago. I noticed you changed the date from a year to a range. Given he antiquity of the subject matter, I don't doubt that we can't pin down when it was written. Although you may have made the article more accurate, your addition is unsourced. Can you please source your addendum? Thanks and best wishes. -- House of Scandal ( talk) 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Since BHG doesn't seem to have the time, I opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 18#(Some) Years in Ireland categories. If you think it's worth posting at the WikiProject Ireland page, let me know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, im from Cahir (obviously by my username!). I saw you edited the cahir page. I only joined wikipedia last week, so can you give me some tips? Thanks. PROUD CAHIR BOY 1 ( talk) 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am leaving a friendly notice to invite you to participate at a requested move from 'Football in the Republic of Ireland' to 'Association football in the Republic of Ireland', due to your participation in a previous requested move. Hope to see you there! EJF ( talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
For a reply see my talk page. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 09:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There don't seem to be many Irish articles hitting the front page, so I am trying to get some of my recent creations into Did you know? box on the front page. The two suggestions which I have made at T:TDYK are Fintan "Lazarus" Coogan and Pól "20 press-ups" Ó Foighil.
Fingers crossed :) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I happened to notice your Pól Ó Foighil article in the DYK "waiting room" a last night and left a complementary note beneath it. I see no reason why it shouldn't make front page. I haven't checked out your "Lazarus" Coogan article but will. Go n'éirí an t-ádh leat. -- House of Scandal ( talk) 15:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
yer man Conormcgarry moved your original article but didn't move the talk. Are you able to fix? Albatross2147 ( talk) 06:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Sarah777, how are ya doing. GoodDay ( talk) 21:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That's nice, Cheers. GoodDay ( talk) 21:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI. Tyrenius ( talk) 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed two posts you made [2] on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination) per WP:BLP. If you wish to comment, do so without making derogatory comments about other people. Tyrenius ( talk) 03:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, that's more than enough. I've blocked you for 24 hours for this comment which was completely out of order. Nobody should have to put up with that sort of abuse - Alison ❤ 15:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this is the most informed forum to address the completely unacceptable harassment in these posts. [15][16] It is time to stop tolerating such behaviour from anyone. This user has been adequately warned and continues to be a disruptive presence:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. -- Tyrenius (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly - this had NOTHING to do with "The Troubles" and shouldn't be here. If you had banned the various abusive uncivil Admins I've encountered you might have some case - but you (plural) never do. And you and people like you Tyrenius can rant about what you will tolerate etc all you want, but what you are doing is simple bullying. The remarks you removed were fully appropriate to the way John was beheaving; constantly repeating that there was "consensus" where manifestly there was none. He completely abused his position in relation to "massacres"; refused to engage or defend his decision but merely repeated parrot-like in a condescending arrogant tone that there "was consensus"; as if repitition made it so. Then he interprets my equally constant contradictions of his LIE as "harrassment". How neat. And of course his fellow Admins (some of them) agree that "nobody (meaning:no Admin) should have to put up with that". Oh dear! How thoughtful are we Admins towards our own feelings - such touching empathy. Interestingly; all bar one of these abusive blocks have been for incivility to AN ADMIN. And the single block not for hurting some insulting Admin's feelings was an accidental 3RR. Sarah777 ( talk) 16:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm. It's obviously quite upsetting to you and it's been going on some time now. We all kinda know what Sarah is like re. admins, though, but that's no excuse. Ty beat me to it and removed the comments with a warning. Trouble is, if you try something like civility parole, a certain someone will likely call it "censorship". What to do ... - Alison ❤ 05:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly frustrating. I'm happy with Ty's actions there for now; I have a lot of respect for Sarah's passion but her sniping on the list of massacres article, which Rock asked me to look in on, is getting wearing, as I mentioned a few days ago. I hope she will focus on harmonious editing from now on; I don't come here to be spoken to that way. Thanks for commenting. --John (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It is harassment per Wikipedia:HAR#Targeted_personal_attacks: Targeted personal attacks: Not all personal attacks are harassment, but when an editor engages in repeated personal attacks on a particular editor or group of editors, that's another matter. However, it doesn't matter what it is called, it is still unacceptable. It is a breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, which are policies. It is demoralising and humiliating for an editor to be subjected to this kind of abuse. We have come down hard on other breaches of policy re sockpuppeting, and the air seems rather clearer as a result. There is no reason to treat this case any differently. There is no reason to exercise restraint, because it's going to be called "censorship": that would be giving in to emotional blackmail. Many people who transgress throw counter-accusations to get themselves off the hook. It doesn't work like that. Abusive comments about other editors poison the atmosphere and do not address the issues. There is no excuse for them, especially with consistent offenders, which Sarah 777 is. I suggest a one week block in the first instance, with increasing lengths for further offences. That is better than doing nothing for a year and then imposing a community ban when it gets unbearable. Tyrenius (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The comments on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 18 are worth looking at as well. One Night In Hackney303 14:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Remarks by Sarah777 from the above deletion review discussion:
Could this be related to the involvement of some editors in "an article I couldn't give a sh*t about" (List of massacres) by some Anglo editors, one wonders?[17]
[NB change from "English" to "Anglo"]
I also (personal view) think there is an element of typical British anti-Irishness involved here; the nationality of most of those attacking the project is very clear.[18]
Tyrenius (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the nature of many of the comments made in the "years in Ireland" case that is a pretty reasonable suspicion to have. Sarah777 ( talk) 17:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The first part of the initial comment is dubious too - "typical deletionist nonsense. This is an attack on the work of the productive editors by the bureaucrats". One Night In Hackney303 15:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777's response on my talk page: "Kindly sod off."[19] Tyrenius (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
... and blocked for 24 hours. That's more than enough - nobody needs to put up with that sort of abuse - Alison ❤ 15:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This is worth a look too - under a heading of "Another daft decision" she said "PSB, I see you moved "football" in Ireland to some weird name rather than to a disamb page as was the clear consensus on the matter. Have you ever made a sensible call as an Admin? Please reverse this asinine decision". One Night In Hackney303 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Another decision taken without consensus. Outrageous actually. Sarah777 ( talk) 17:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Enforcement_requests"
This page was last modified on 23 February 2008, at 16:44. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
"Another daft decision" Sarha777 I have no idea what you are talking about. Please show me with a link to the edit you accusing me of altering. I made this move but I did not edit football in the Republic of Ireland [3]-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, see what Ali is up to!! [4] Oh Dear!!! 78.19.73.33 ( talk) 01:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Foz here Ali. How did you guess? Pretty sharp!! Eh....!! 78.19.73.33 ( talk) 01:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As one who often drank with Brendan Behan's brother, Dominic Behan, the Vintagekits dispute has nothing to do with Britain or Ireland, or the Troubles for that matter. Unfortunately some of the Admins have made that connection. I don't know what Vintagekits politics are, and I don't give two "knackers". Strange how all this is being shoveled up again, when it was supposed to be in the past. Vintage is blocked for voting with a sock. I think the troubles are over in Northern Ireland, Wikipedia take note! 78.19.73.33 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Sarah! :) - Alison ❤ 01:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope, not me - though I guess by saying earlier in a call for registration that someone could easily be framed I may have given someone ideas! If your check-user thingy concluded that 'twas I 'tis time to bin it. Remember Derova? But if you are just having a guess isn't that a bit dangerous? I said if I changed IP to get around restrictions I'd sign my name. My page wasn't blocked and I haven't changed my location; still plugged to the same socket with an uncloaked IP. What if instead of making a few helpful comments my new friend 78.19.73.33 made a few threats or changed a few "troubles" articles? Not funny. But I don't blame 78197333, I blame The Committee. Sarah777 ( talk) 01:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Careful Sarah!! Make sure it's germane!! She'll fling it at you later :~))) 78.19.73.33 ( talk) 02:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
OK Philip; in your case and in your case only it appears I was utterly totally and abysmally wrong in both cases. I hereby retract and apologise for misreading your "Football" edit" and please point me to the spot where you'd like me to deposit an equally grovelling retraction and apology for accusing you of tinkering with the 1641 article. I promise to read your edits more carefully in future before commenting on them. Fuirthermore I must record that you sometimes do make good decisions contrary to what may have appeared to be implied in one of my remarks above. Needless to say I was being a bit caustic rather than literal. Sarah777 ( talk) 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair points, which I will digest. But I must also point out to you that I can only go by what I read on your page. It's all very depressing, and maybe very shallow too!! It wasn't so much your comments, but comments by others, that you accepted as fact. That also was depressing. 78.19.73.33 ( talk) 02:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Vintagekits is gone, they finally drove him demented, and now this [5]. Do you notice a pattern. Same heads looming, they need a prey. Look at them! - Tyrenius, Rockpocket, John, SirFozzie, Alison, GoodDay, One Night In Hackney, BrownHairedGirl. Someone recently predicted this. Who will be after you. They don't give "two knackers" about your 20,000 good edits. Is Wikipedia worth this bs? 78.19.2.57 ( talk) 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And, maybe you know, Sarah, but I'm not "after you". I've been fighting your corner for some time. Had I not blocked your a/c yesterday, be assured that someone else was ready and it wouldn't have been for 24 hours. Sorry again :( - Alison ❤ 02:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on 1012 in Ireland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Thedjatclubrock :) (
T/
C)
02:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This article has already been moved without any such request. Put it back where it was please. Sarah777 ( talk) 02:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
GH, I read the comments and have replied on that page. It seems to escape the attention of so many esteemed (in their own minds) Admins that this current "dispute" is not a "troubles" related issue. So it can't be me v. some "troubles" monitoring group. And I cannot believe John's claims of bemusement at why I have an issue with him when I have given the reason so often I'm being accused of "harassment". Believe me, being threatened by Admins with blocking power who are edit-warring (a near daily occurrence for me), THAT is harassment. Spare me your sensitivity to my screaming while you gouge my eyes out. Sarah777 ( talk) 20:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just suffered a 24 hour block (which I managed to get lifted) for being disruptive in Years in Ireland. See my talk page - makes you glad to be a part of this. Ardfern ( talk) 22:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. It is quite unacceptable to label people "fascists". You also left the same post on another user talk page. [6] It is quite clear in the context of the conversation that you are referring to a specific admin. To any reviewing admin, please see extensive warnings to Sarah777 and recently at Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777. Tyrenius ( talk) 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no personal dispute. I have had very little to do with you. I only saw your post below about me after I had blocked you. I had your page open with the edit window while I was blocking. When I posted the block notice and saved, your message appeared. Tyrenius ( talk) 00:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I've just been blocked by an Admin that I have been engaged in a series of disputes with and whom I had listed for recall just before the block. Frankly if that isn't gross abuse of Admin tools nothing is.
Decline reason:
Personal attacks aren't acceptable, and even while blocked you continued ( [7]) When this block expires, I ask you to please refrain from personally attacking anybody, and remain civil.— Rjd0060 ( talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
.
How dare you remove my 'unblock' request.
Sarah777 (
talk)
00:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Do not remove my post which is relevant to your unblock request. As you can see [8] I was restoring your unblock request when there was a ec. Tyrenius ( talk) 00:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
==Admins who shouldn't==
Thanks Prime. These are the Admins I wish to remove:
Sarah777 (
talk)
23:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Am withdrawing this in a spirit of compromise as per below. Sarah777 ( talk) 09:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, I am willing to unblock you per WP:ANI discussion if you'll please desist from making such personal comments against other editors. Do you agree to this? - Alison ❤ 03:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought I was unblocked but it appears only this page is....1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9.....ah! That's better. Sarah777 ( talk) 09:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on 770 in Ireland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
flaming
lawyer
c 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought that 852 in Ireland really belong at 853 in Ireland, so I moved it. There's still a redirect left. If you can't think of anything to add - and I'm not full of ideas - I can delete the redirect. Let me know. I didn't change List of years in Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, it's good to see the your block has been lifted ... but while your choice of language was out-of-order, so was the block, and I am increasingly concerned that some admins appear to have you marked down as a "trouble-maker" and stand ready to pounce. A block for objecting (even intemperately) to someone else's block is starting to look like victimisation.
I'm trying to think through how to deal with this whole mess -- RFC? arbcom? -- but for now see this at WP:ANI. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ha, ha! I was thinking more of
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"! I also found this useful User box for Sarah:
![]() |
This user loves Wikidrama. |
-- Major Bonkers (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If I ever visit, I shall wear my chain-mail jockstrap - just to be on the safe side.-- Major Bonkers (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Sarah777. I hope you'll understand, my revert is an apolitical revert. GoodDay ( talk) 23:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay ( talk) 00:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If anybody had asked me, not that there was any particular reason they should, I'd have said that a Timeline of Irish pre-history and a Timeline of early Irish history and so on would have been the way to go. I know an arbcom case is probably not the thing to bring up, and that ghastly tv cruft is a bad comparison, but Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Fait accompli is probably relevant. I think that's a bad decision for them to take, but the arbcom don't pay any more attention to me than WP:IE.
That's that. But something else occurs to me. You can take a good picture and you have a snazzy camera and you're in Dublin. I was wondering, are you ever likely to be in the National Museum of Ireland, specifically the Kildare Street bit? The picture we have of the Ardagh Chalice is not so wonderful. We don't have one at all of Saint Patrick's Bell Shrine. Just a thought. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice you are now into collecting barnstars, not blocks, and you deserve one for this! Tyrenius ( talk) 04:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humour | |
For the funniest post of the year. Tyrenius ( talk) 04:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
How's it going again Sarah? I just have to say, lots of those dates are extremely insecure historically, mainly because you have to wait until the 7th century until the island of saints and scholars gets large numbers of contemporary sources. So I mean it's pretty unlikely that more than a handful of events relating to Ireland before that period will have any fixed date (meaning a date a historian would give any credit to). Just dropping my concern. Others may disagree. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 10:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I read he is anxious to get back to Afghanistan to do some more killin'. So I guess our gain will be the Afghan's loss! Love the quote:
- kinda sums up my own sentiments on the Wiki verification standards. Sarah777 ( talk) 10:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
How Sarah, how ye? I've read a million of your edits so I'd like to discuss a few things if you don't mind.
(A) Indepenent Northern Ireland (from both the Republic and the UK), what would be your thoughts on this?
(B) Britain as an ancient description, as in Brythonic?
167.1.176.4 ( talk) 08:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The Truth can sometimes be a rather evasive thing. perhaps you might wish to reconsider your use of that term? 91.65.0.77 ( talk) 09:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear - you two shouldn't take it all so seriously! Much as I respect both of your contributions, a bit of a wind-up in return for your own commentary here seems fair enough to me! So: BHG; you will find that the Englishman is renowned throughout the world for his exquisite manners, good tailoring, sense of fair play, and toleration. All of these facets of the English national character can be seen on any night of the week, in any of our city centres in the late evening. Unfortunately, the downside of the English character is that it is easily led by bellicose 'foreigners', whether Irish or Scottish. And seriously, for a moment, one can draw a distinction between the Queen and her grandson going to war, and Tony Blair - who has led this country into six wars ( Kosovo, Sierra Leone, the Iraq bombing campaign and invasion, the invasion of Afghanistan and continuing campaign) and whose family is kept well out of harm's - and in remuneration's - way. Sarah's response is a bit more difficult to respond to humourously, but I'm afraid that it's a matter of historical record that the Irish experience of Empire extends beyond, and is much more nuanced than, simply victim status. And describing Edmund Burke as a 'quisling' seems a bit much: I see that he's appeared on the Republic's stamps; had he been listened to, in an age of stupid politicians and a mad king, the experience of Empire might have been much more pleasant for all concerned.
One of these days, I really must get round to my long-promised task of putting down my thoughts on the Anglo-Irish experience... . Best wishes to you both - and calm down, please!-- Major Bonkers (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Your point about how you define an Irishman is very good. One of the peculiarities of Ireland is that the Republic moved from being 'multi-ethnic' to defining itself in terms of Catholicism and nationalism. By contrast, England moved completely the opposite way, with the great post-war immigration completely altering what had been a largely unified racial population; Poland, multi-ethnic before the War, moved, like Ireland, to defining itself in terms of Catholicism and nationalism; and so on and so on. The danger of denying the Irish influence in the Empire - Wellesley, Wellington, Burke, Palmerstone, etc. - is that you are rather arbitrarily deciding who is or is not Irish. Do you get to the stage where tenuous claims are promoted and more valid ones are downplayed?
Regarding Nazi Germany: it seems to me that you have to divide the Nazi empire into two halves, Western and Eastern Europe. The Nazis did attempt to raise armies, which efforts were by and large ignored in the West, although they did raise a few ineffective units of self-identified intellectuals. Denmark, which nominally collaborated, also succeeded in saving almost its entire Jewish population; the French, by contrast, were punctilious about rounding up their Jews. In the East the Nazis had better success, notably in the Ukraine and Baltic States, which furnished fighting troops and Einsatzgruppen. (Poland, which lost between 20-25% of its population in the War, is generally considered never to have collaborated and to have maintained the most effective resistance movement in Europe.) However, in most cases these raised troops, whilst nominally fighting for the Nazis, were actually acting against their own enemies: Communism, in Eastern Europe, also being associated with the Jews. The great example of that is Yugoslavia, which split, in its support for the Nazis or the Allies, almost completely along racial lines. However, the comparison of the British Empire to the Nazi empire is a bit unusual; would you consider those Irishmen who enlisted in the British army to fight Nazi-ism to be collaborators, fellow-travelers, quislings, etc.? Surely they actually saw beyond that and joined-up because, generally, they saw the moral worth of the cause?
I see, from his article, that the quotation of Wellington's is only attributed to him; I'm not sure quite what you have against him - he promoted Catholic emancipation when he was Prime Minister, you know (unfortunately to little effect). And at least the 'hayroes' haven't got round to demolishing his monument yet!-- Major Bonkers (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I agree that Bonkers is a bit behind the curve with his conflation of Nationalism and Catholicism; it was a marriage of convenience which never had institutional approval from Rome. (Much as I believe the rise of Islamic fundamental is a direct response to attacks from the West). And of course it was British-imposed partition that cemented two potentially sectarian states in place. In so far as Irish nationalism identified with Catholicism it was a simple historical fact that the great genocides and ethnic cleanings were perpetrated by Protestant, English-speaking British against Catholic native Gaelic. Your attempt to distinguish between East and West Europe in WW2 is not relevant; the fact is that in every country invaded the Nazis got enough collaborators, immediately, to assist their control. Raising armies is not a valid comparison given that the occupations didn't even survive the war. As for modern times, Irishness is a state of mind but at it's core is a belief in a free and independent Ireland - you don't believe in that and you ain't Irish - which is why Unionists don't regard themselves as firstly (or at all in many cases) Irish and I wouldn't regard them as such. Your Phil Lynott remarks are astonishing and on the surface seem racist (I presume that isn't intended?) - was he not born to an Irish woman and moved at a young age to Crumlin where he was subsequently raised? How the heck is that "less Irish" than a Chilean of Irish descent? Actually since we recently abolished birthright in a referendum I'd consider most recent emigrants from North Africa as more Irish than say, Kevin Myers - a foreign English Nationalist who gets to vent his Unionist views in the Establishment Irish media in a manner that no Republican Irishman is allowed (by an establishment fearful of sparking trouble in NI). As I say, it is neither an issue of race or religion - but a matter of living in Ireland and having a few core political beliefs. Sarah777 ( talk) 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sarah, I assure you that my intent was not to revert edits with which I have an ideological problem. My revert was done specifically because the previous edit had damaged references and left incomplete text in the article. I said so in my edit summary. Cheers! --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 23:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of
Emo and pasted it into
Emo (music). This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's
history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a
redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the
"Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at
Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at
Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. --
Muchness (
talk)
02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Here Ye, Here Ye! For one week beginning this Very Moment I will refrain from editing any Ireland v Brit Occupiers articles; including but not Exclusively 1641; The Troubles & soforth. Ditto the execrable "List of so-called Maffacres" & soforth. And be Advised that in the Realm of Ye Years in Irelande not a single category shall I create nor even alter howsoever deserveth. The reason for these measures are that the Roads of Irelande; Villages thereof and even the Hills and Streams are currently Bereft of my Attention. Sarah777 ( talk) 23:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I hope you'll be willing to support my Request for Adminship. Thanks. MurphiaMan ( talk) 12:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I replied to your comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.208.58 ( talk) 04:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, do you remember the discussion we had about doing a years in Northern Ireland navigation template based on {{ YearInIrelandNav}}? (see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Navigation_template_for_years-in-Ireland_articles)
From what I can see, the discussion petered out when you wanted a better image than Image:NIShape.gif (see right), but I couldn't find one.
I think we both moved on to other issues, but it still seems like a good idea. So I suggest that I create the template with NIShape.gif, which can be replaced with a better image if anyone finds or makes one. Is that OK with you?
Also, I think that we need to decide a colour for the border of the box. I think that neither orange nor green would be appropriate (both would be seen as partisan), and I can't think of a suitable alterantive ... so I suggest the we use the dark blue #000062 as used on the website of the Northern Ireland Executive. I assume that the dark blue colour scheme must have been agreed by the parties in the executive as an acceptable alternative to the colours associated with the various political strands in NI, and that it's therefore as close as we can get to a neutral solution.
I have done a very crude doodle to the right of this text. What do you think of that as a start? (I'll ask Ardefern too). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I decided to be [[WP:BOLD}}, so I have gone ahead and moved it out of userspace (now at {{ YearInNorthernIrelandNav}}), rolled it out on all the year in Northern Ireland articles (see e.g. 1969 in Northern Ireland), and left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Northern_Ireland#Year_in_Northern_Ireland_articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Great job BHG - have looked at 1969 - exceptionally cool. Love it - only hope our other NI punters love it too. Thanks to you and Sarah for all the kind words. No need for barnstars (although very nice to get them) - rather just get on with the work. Ardfern ( talk) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ireland articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
![]() |
6 | 3 | 26 | 29 | 64 | ||
![]() |
2 | 6 | 8 | ||||
![]() |
1 | 11 | 62 | 169 | 243 | ||
B | 29 | 193 | 423 | 793 | 1,438 | ||
C | 29 | 201 | 922 | 4,290 | 1 | 5,443 | |
Start | 1 | 210 | 2,294 | 27,953 | 3 | 30,461 | |
Stub | 3 | 429 | 26,563 | 6 | 7 | 27,008 | |
List | 28 | 315 | 2,927 | 9 | 3,279 | ||
Category | 1 | 5 | 25,947 | 25,953 | |||
Disambig | 1 | 3 | 177 | 181 | |||
File | 175 | 175 | |||||
Portal | 26 | 26 | |||||
Project | 1 | 19 | 20 | ||||
Redirect | 8 | 58 | 945 | 1,492 | 2,503 | ||
Template | 1 | 3,171 | 3,172 | ||||
NA | 3 | 2 | 5 | ||||
Other | 84 | 84 | |||||
Assessed | 66 | 658 | 4,533 | 63,687 | 31,109 | 10 | 100,063 |
Unassessed | 28 | 28 | |||||
Total | 66 | 658 | 4,533 | 63,687 | 31,109 | 38 | 100,091 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 340,889 | Ω = 5.27 |
This table automatically updated itself; see
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ireland articles by quality log for details of the latest changes. Current and past versions of this table (July 2007-present) are stored at
User:Ww2censor/Assessments
Sarah777 (
talk)
22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ireland articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
![]() |
6 | 3 | 26 | 29 | 64 | ||
![]() |
2 | 6 | 8 | ||||
![]() |
1 | 11 | 62 | 169 | 243 | ||
B | 29 | 193 | 423 | 793 | 1,438 | ||
C | 29 | 201 | 922 | 4,290 | 1 | 5,443 | |
Start | 1 | 210 | 2,294 | 27,953 | 3 | 30,461 | |
Stub | 3 | 429 | 26,563 | 6 | 7 | 27,008 | |
List | 28 | 315 | 2,927 | 9 | 3,279 | ||
Category | 1 | 5 | 25,947 | 25,953 | |||
Disambig | 1 | 3 | 177 | 181 | |||
File | 175 | 175 | |||||
Portal | 26 | 26 | |||||
Project | 1 | 19 | 20 | ||||
Redirect | 8 | 58 | 945 | 1,492 | 2,503 | ||
Template | 1 | 3,171 | 3,172 | ||||
NA | 3 | 2 | 5 | ||||
Other | 84 | 84 | |||||
Assessed | 66 | 658 | 4,533 | 63,687 | 31,109 | 10 | 100,063 |
Unassessed | 28 | 28 | |||||
Total | 66 | 658 | 4,533 | 63,687 | 31,109 | 38 | 100,091 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 340,889 | Ω = 5.27 |
This table automatically updated itself; see
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ireland articles by quality log for details of the latest changes. Current and past versions of this table (July 2007-present) are stored at
User:Ww2censor/Assessments
Sarah777 (
talk)
22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, nice photo. -- The.Q (t) (c) 16:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777 I think you posting ( Revision as of 02:40, 16 February 2008) to Talk:List_of_massacres#Alternative_names is unacceptable, please read my reply on that page, [1] and consider if you think your accusation is still appropriate. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 13:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarah. Thanks for taking interest in the Great Book of Lecan article I created some time ago. I noticed you changed the date from a year to a range. Given he antiquity of the subject matter, I don't doubt that we can't pin down when it was written. Although you may have made the article more accurate, your addition is unsourced. Can you please source your addendum? Thanks and best wishes. -- House of Scandal ( talk) 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Since BHG doesn't seem to have the time, I opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 18#(Some) Years in Ireland categories. If you think it's worth posting at the WikiProject Ireland page, let me know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, im from Cahir (obviously by my username!). I saw you edited the cahir page. I only joined wikipedia last week, so can you give me some tips? Thanks. PROUD CAHIR BOY 1 ( talk) 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am leaving a friendly notice to invite you to participate at a requested move from 'Football in the Republic of Ireland' to 'Association football in the Republic of Ireland', due to your participation in a previous requested move. Hope to see you there! EJF ( talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
For a reply see my talk page. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 09:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There don't seem to be many Irish articles hitting the front page, so I am trying to get some of my recent creations into Did you know? box on the front page. The two suggestions which I have made at T:TDYK are Fintan "Lazarus" Coogan and Pól "20 press-ups" Ó Foighil.
Fingers crossed :) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I happened to notice your Pól Ó Foighil article in the DYK "waiting room" a last night and left a complementary note beneath it. I see no reason why it shouldn't make front page. I haven't checked out your "Lazarus" Coogan article but will. Go n'éirí an t-ádh leat. -- House of Scandal ( talk) 15:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
yer man Conormcgarry moved your original article but didn't move the talk. Are you able to fix? Albatross2147 ( talk) 06:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Sarah777, how are ya doing. GoodDay ( talk) 21:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That's nice, Cheers. GoodDay ( talk) 21:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI. Tyrenius ( talk) 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed two posts you made [2] on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination) per WP:BLP. If you wish to comment, do so without making derogatory comments about other people. Tyrenius ( talk) 03:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, that's more than enough. I've blocked you for 24 hours for this comment which was completely out of order. Nobody should have to put up with that sort of abuse - Alison ❤ 15:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this is the most informed forum to address the completely unacceptable harassment in these posts. [15][16] It is time to stop tolerating such behaviour from anyone. This user has been adequately warned and continues to be a disruptive presence:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. -- Tyrenius (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly - this had NOTHING to do with "The Troubles" and shouldn't be here. If you had banned the various abusive uncivil Admins I've encountered you might have some case - but you (plural) never do. And you and people like you Tyrenius can rant about what you will tolerate etc all you want, but what you are doing is simple bullying. The remarks you removed were fully appropriate to the way John was beheaving; constantly repeating that there was "consensus" where manifestly there was none. He completely abused his position in relation to "massacres"; refused to engage or defend his decision but merely repeated parrot-like in a condescending arrogant tone that there "was consensus"; as if repitition made it so. Then he interprets my equally constant contradictions of his LIE as "harrassment". How neat. And of course his fellow Admins (some of them) agree that "nobody (meaning:no Admin) should have to put up with that". Oh dear! How thoughtful are we Admins towards our own feelings - such touching empathy. Interestingly; all bar one of these abusive blocks have been for incivility to AN ADMIN. And the single block not for hurting some insulting Admin's feelings was an accidental 3RR. Sarah777 ( talk) 16:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm. It's obviously quite upsetting to you and it's been going on some time now. We all kinda know what Sarah is like re. admins, though, but that's no excuse. Ty beat me to it and removed the comments with a warning. Trouble is, if you try something like civility parole, a certain someone will likely call it "censorship". What to do ... - Alison ❤ 05:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly frustrating. I'm happy with Ty's actions there for now; I have a lot of respect for Sarah's passion but her sniping on the list of massacres article, which Rock asked me to look in on, is getting wearing, as I mentioned a few days ago. I hope she will focus on harmonious editing from now on; I don't come here to be spoken to that way. Thanks for commenting. --John (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It is harassment per Wikipedia:HAR#Targeted_personal_attacks: Targeted personal attacks: Not all personal attacks are harassment, but when an editor engages in repeated personal attacks on a particular editor or group of editors, that's another matter. However, it doesn't matter what it is called, it is still unacceptable. It is a breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, which are policies. It is demoralising and humiliating for an editor to be subjected to this kind of abuse. We have come down hard on other breaches of policy re sockpuppeting, and the air seems rather clearer as a result. There is no reason to treat this case any differently. There is no reason to exercise restraint, because it's going to be called "censorship": that would be giving in to emotional blackmail. Many people who transgress throw counter-accusations to get themselves off the hook. It doesn't work like that. Abusive comments about other editors poison the atmosphere and do not address the issues. There is no excuse for them, especially with consistent offenders, which Sarah 777 is. I suggest a one week block in the first instance, with increasing lengths for further offences. That is better than doing nothing for a year and then imposing a community ban when it gets unbearable. Tyrenius (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The comments on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 18 are worth looking at as well. One Night In Hackney303 14:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Remarks by Sarah777 from the above deletion review discussion:
Could this be related to the involvement of some editors in "an article I couldn't give a sh*t about" (List of massacres) by some Anglo editors, one wonders?[17]
[NB change from "English" to "Anglo"]
I also (personal view) think there is an element of typical British anti-Irishness involved here; the nationality of most of those attacking the project is very clear.[18]
Tyrenius (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the nature of many of the comments made in the "years in Ireland" case that is a pretty reasonable suspicion to have. Sarah777 ( talk) 17:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The first part of the initial comment is dubious too - "typical deletionist nonsense. This is an attack on the work of the productive editors by the bureaucrats". One Night In Hackney303 15:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777's response on my talk page: "Kindly sod off."[19] Tyrenius (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
... and blocked for 24 hours. That's more than enough - nobody needs to put up with that sort of abuse - Alison ❤ 15:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This is worth a look too - under a heading of "Another daft decision" she said "PSB, I see you moved "football" in Ireland to some weird name rather than to a disamb page as was the clear consensus on the matter. Have you ever made a sensible call as an Admin? Please reverse this asinine decision". One Night In Hackney303 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Another decision taken without consensus. Outrageous actually. Sarah777 ( talk) 17:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Enforcement_requests"
This page was last modified on 23 February 2008, at 16:44. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
"Another daft decision" Sarha777 I have no idea what you are talking about. Please show me with a link to the edit you accusing me of altering. I made this move but I did not edit football in the Republic of Ireland [3]-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, see what Ali is up to!! [4] Oh Dear!!! 78.19.73.33 ( talk) 01:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Foz here Ali. How did you guess? Pretty sharp!! Eh....!! 78.19.73.33 ( talk) 01:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As one who often drank with Brendan Behan's brother, Dominic Behan, the Vintagekits dispute has nothing to do with Britain or Ireland, or the Troubles for that matter. Unfortunately some of the Admins have made that connection. I don't know what Vintagekits politics are, and I don't give two "knackers". Strange how all this is being shoveled up again, when it was supposed to be in the past. Vintage is blocked for voting with a sock. I think the troubles are over in Northern Ireland, Wikipedia take note! 78.19.73.33 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Sarah! :) - Alison ❤ 01:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope, not me - though I guess by saying earlier in a call for registration that someone could easily be framed I may have given someone ideas! If your check-user thingy concluded that 'twas I 'tis time to bin it. Remember Derova? But if you are just having a guess isn't that a bit dangerous? I said if I changed IP to get around restrictions I'd sign my name. My page wasn't blocked and I haven't changed my location; still plugged to the same socket with an uncloaked IP. What if instead of making a few helpful comments my new friend 78.19.73.33 made a few threats or changed a few "troubles" articles? Not funny. But I don't blame 78197333, I blame The Committee. Sarah777 ( talk) 01:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Careful Sarah!! Make sure it's germane!! She'll fling it at you later :~))) 78.19.73.33 ( talk) 02:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
OK Philip; in your case and in your case only it appears I was utterly totally and abysmally wrong in both cases. I hereby retract and apologise for misreading your "Football" edit" and please point me to the spot where you'd like me to deposit an equally grovelling retraction and apology for accusing you of tinkering with the 1641 article. I promise to read your edits more carefully in future before commenting on them. Fuirthermore I must record that you sometimes do make good decisions contrary to what may have appeared to be implied in one of my remarks above. Needless to say I was being a bit caustic rather than literal. Sarah777 ( talk) 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair points, which I will digest. But I must also point out to you that I can only go by what I read on your page. It's all very depressing, and maybe very shallow too!! It wasn't so much your comments, but comments by others, that you accepted as fact. That also was depressing. 78.19.73.33 ( talk) 02:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Vintagekits is gone, they finally drove him demented, and now this [5]. Do you notice a pattern. Same heads looming, they need a prey. Look at them! - Tyrenius, Rockpocket, John, SirFozzie, Alison, GoodDay, One Night In Hackney, BrownHairedGirl. Someone recently predicted this. Who will be after you. They don't give "two knackers" about your 20,000 good edits. Is Wikipedia worth this bs? 78.19.2.57 ( talk) 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And, maybe you know, Sarah, but I'm not "after you". I've been fighting your corner for some time. Had I not blocked your a/c yesterday, be assured that someone else was ready and it wouldn't have been for 24 hours. Sorry again :( - Alison ❤ 02:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on 1012 in Ireland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Thedjatclubrock :) (
T/
C)
02:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This article has already been moved without any such request. Put it back where it was please. Sarah777 ( talk) 02:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
GH, I read the comments and have replied on that page. It seems to escape the attention of so many esteemed (in their own minds) Admins that this current "dispute" is not a "troubles" related issue. So it can't be me v. some "troubles" monitoring group. And I cannot believe John's claims of bemusement at why I have an issue with him when I have given the reason so often I'm being accused of "harassment". Believe me, being threatened by Admins with blocking power who are edit-warring (a near daily occurrence for me), THAT is harassment. Spare me your sensitivity to my screaming while you gouge my eyes out. Sarah777 ( talk) 20:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Just suffered a 24 hour block (which I managed to get lifted) for being disruptive in Years in Ireland. See my talk page - makes you glad to be a part of this. Ardfern ( talk) 22:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. It is quite unacceptable to label people "fascists". You also left the same post on another user talk page. [6] It is quite clear in the context of the conversation that you are referring to a specific admin. To any reviewing admin, please see extensive warnings to Sarah777 and recently at Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777. Tyrenius ( talk) 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no personal dispute. I have had very little to do with you. I only saw your post below about me after I had blocked you. I had your page open with the edit window while I was blocking. When I posted the block notice and saved, your message appeared. Tyrenius ( talk) 00:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I've just been blocked by an Admin that I have been engaged in a series of disputes with and whom I had listed for recall just before the block. Frankly if that isn't gross abuse of Admin tools nothing is.
Decline reason:
Personal attacks aren't acceptable, and even while blocked you continued ( [7]) When this block expires, I ask you to please refrain from personally attacking anybody, and remain civil.— Rjd0060 ( talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
.
How dare you remove my 'unblock' request.
Sarah777 (
talk)
00:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Do not remove my post which is relevant to your unblock request. As you can see [8] I was restoring your unblock request when there was a ec. Tyrenius ( talk) 00:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
==Admins who shouldn't==
Thanks Prime. These are the Admins I wish to remove:
Sarah777 (
talk)
23:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Am withdrawing this in a spirit of compromise as per below. Sarah777 ( talk) 09:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, I am willing to unblock you per WP:ANI discussion if you'll please desist from making such personal comments against other editors. Do you agree to this? - Alison ❤ 03:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought I was unblocked but it appears only this page is....1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9.....ah! That's better. Sarah777 ( talk) 09:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on 770 in Ireland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
flaming
lawyer
c 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought that 852 in Ireland really belong at 853 in Ireland, so I moved it. There's still a redirect left. If you can't think of anything to add - and I'm not full of ideas - I can delete the redirect. Let me know. I didn't change List of years in Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, it's good to see the your block has been lifted ... but while your choice of language was out-of-order, so was the block, and I am increasingly concerned that some admins appear to have you marked down as a "trouble-maker" and stand ready to pounce. A block for objecting (even intemperately) to someone else's block is starting to look like victimisation.
I'm trying to think through how to deal with this whole mess -- RFC? arbcom? -- but for now see this at WP:ANI. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ha, ha! I was thinking more of
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"! I also found this useful User box for Sarah:
![]() |
This user loves Wikidrama. |
-- Major Bonkers (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If I ever visit, I shall wear my chain-mail jockstrap - just to be on the safe side.-- Major Bonkers (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Sarah777. I hope you'll understand, my revert is an apolitical revert. GoodDay ( talk) 23:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay ( talk) 00:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
If anybody had asked me, not that there was any particular reason they should, I'd have said that a Timeline of Irish pre-history and a Timeline of early Irish history and so on would have been the way to go. I know an arbcom case is probably not the thing to bring up, and that ghastly tv cruft is a bad comparison, but Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Fait accompli is probably relevant. I think that's a bad decision for them to take, but the arbcom don't pay any more attention to me than WP:IE.
That's that. But something else occurs to me. You can take a good picture and you have a snazzy camera and you're in Dublin. I was wondering, are you ever likely to be in the National Museum of Ireland, specifically the Kildare Street bit? The picture we have of the Ardagh Chalice is not so wonderful. We don't have one at all of Saint Patrick's Bell Shrine. Just a thought. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice you are now into collecting barnstars, not blocks, and you deserve one for this! Tyrenius ( talk) 04:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humour | |
For the funniest post of the year. Tyrenius ( talk) 04:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC) |
How's it going again Sarah? I just have to say, lots of those dates are extremely insecure historically, mainly because you have to wait until the 7th century until the island of saints and scholars gets large numbers of contemporary sources. So I mean it's pretty unlikely that more than a handful of events relating to Ireland before that period will have any fixed date (meaning a date a historian would give any credit to). Just dropping my concern. Others may disagree. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 10:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I read he is anxious to get back to Afghanistan to do some more killin'. So I guess our gain will be the Afghan's loss! Love the quote:
- kinda sums up my own sentiments on the Wiki verification standards. Sarah777 ( talk) 10:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
How Sarah, how ye? I've read a million of your edits so I'd like to discuss a few things if you don't mind.
(A) Indepenent Northern Ireland (from both the Republic and the UK), what would be your thoughts on this?
(B) Britain as an ancient description, as in Brythonic?
167.1.176.4 ( talk) 08:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The Truth can sometimes be a rather evasive thing. perhaps you might wish to reconsider your use of that term? 91.65.0.77 ( talk) 09:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear - you two shouldn't take it all so seriously! Much as I respect both of your contributions, a bit of a wind-up in return for your own commentary here seems fair enough to me! So: BHG; you will find that the Englishman is renowned throughout the world for his exquisite manners, good tailoring, sense of fair play, and toleration. All of these facets of the English national character can be seen on any night of the week, in any of our city centres in the late evening. Unfortunately, the downside of the English character is that it is easily led by bellicose 'foreigners', whether Irish or Scottish. And seriously, for a moment, one can draw a distinction between the Queen and her grandson going to war, and Tony Blair - who has led this country into six wars ( Kosovo, Sierra Leone, the Iraq bombing campaign and invasion, the invasion of Afghanistan and continuing campaign) and whose family is kept well out of harm's - and in remuneration's - way. Sarah's response is a bit more difficult to respond to humourously, but I'm afraid that it's a matter of historical record that the Irish experience of Empire extends beyond, and is much more nuanced than, simply victim status. And describing Edmund Burke as a 'quisling' seems a bit much: I see that he's appeared on the Republic's stamps; had he been listened to, in an age of stupid politicians and a mad king, the experience of Empire might have been much more pleasant for all concerned.
One of these days, I really must get round to my long-promised task of putting down my thoughts on the Anglo-Irish experience... . Best wishes to you both - and calm down, please!-- Major Bonkers (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Your point about how you define an Irishman is very good. One of the peculiarities of Ireland is that the Republic moved from being 'multi-ethnic' to defining itself in terms of Catholicism and nationalism. By contrast, England moved completely the opposite way, with the great post-war immigration completely altering what had been a largely unified racial population; Poland, multi-ethnic before the War, moved, like Ireland, to defining itself in terms of Catholicism and nationalism; and so on and so on. The danger of denying the Irish influence in the Empire - Wellesley, Wellington, Burke, Palmerstone, etc. - is that you are rather arbitrarily deciding who is or is not Irish. Do you get to the stage where tenuous claims are promoted and more valid ones are downplayed?
Regarding Nazi Germany: it seems to me that you have to divide the Nazi empire into two halves, Western and Eastern Europe. The Nazis did attempt to raise armies, which efforts were by and large ignored in the West, although they did raise a few ineffective units of self-identified intellectuals. Denmark, which nominally collaborated, also succeeded in saving almost its entire Jewish population; the French, by contrast, were punctilious about rounding up their Jews. In the East the Nazis had better success, notably in the Ukraine and Baltic States, which furnished fighting troops and Einsatzgruppen. (Poland, which lost between 20-25% of its population in the War, is generally considered never to have collaborated and to have maintained the most effective resistance movement in Europe.) However, in most cases these raised troops, whilst nominally fighting for the Nazis, were actually acting against their own enemies: Communism, in Eastern Europe, also being associated with the Jews. The great example of that is Yugoslavia, which split, in its support for the Nazis or the Allies, almost completely along racial lines. However, the comparison of the British Empire to the Nazi empire is a bit unusual; would you consider those Irishmen who enlisted in the British army to fight Nazi-ism to be collaborators, fellow-travelers, quislings, etc.? Surely they actually saw beyond that and joined-up because, generally, they saw the moral worth of the cause?
I see, from his article, that the quotation of Wellington's is only attributed to him; I'm not sure quite what you have against him - he promoted Catholic emancipation when he was Prime Minister, you know (unfortunately to little effect). And at least the 'hayroes' haven't got round to demolishing his monument yet!-- Major Bonkers (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I agree that Bonkers is a bit behind the curve with his conflation of Nationalism and Catholicism; it was a marriage of convenience which never had institutional approval from Rome. (Much as I believe the rise of Islamic fundamental is a direct response to attacks from the West). And of course it was British-imposed partition that cemented two potentially sectarian states in place. In so far as Irish nationalism identified with Catholicism it was a simple historical fact that the great genocides and ethnic cleanings were perpetrated by Protestant, English-speaking British against Catholic native Gaelic. Your attempt to distinguish between East and West Europe in WW2 is not relevant; the fact is that in every country invaded the Nazis got enough collaborators, immediately, to assist their control. Raising armies is not a valid comparison given that the occupations didn't even survive the war. As for modern times, Irishness is a state of mind but at it's core is a belief in a free and independent Ireland - you don't believe in that and you ain't Irish - which is why Unionists don't regard themselves as firstly (or at all in many cases) Irish and I wouldn't regard them as such. Your Phil Lynott remarks are astonishing and on the surface seem racist (I presume that isn't intended?) - was he not born to an Irish woman and moved at a young age to Crumlin where he was subsequently raised? How the heck is that "less Irish" than a Chilean of Irish descent? Actually since we recently abolished birthright in a referendum I'd consider most recent emigrants from North Africa as more Irish than say, Kevin Myers - a foreign English Nationalist who gets to vent his Unionist views in the Establishment Irish media in a manner that no Republican Irishman is allowed (by an establishment fearful of sparking trouble in NI). As I say, it is neither an issue of race or religion - but a matter of living in Ireland and having a few core political beliefs. Sarah777 ( talk) 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)