Talk of Rochefortbridge has been moved to the bottom of the page.

   * User:Bastun (Talk | History)
   * ‎User:Ben W Bell (Talk | History)
   * ‎User:DSRH (Talk | History)
   * ‎User:Djegan (Talk | History)
   * ‎User:Fenian Swine (Talk | History)
   * ‎User:Flowerpotman (Talk | History)
   * ‎User:Hollywood X (Talk | History)
   * ‎User:Jdorney (Talk | History)
   * ‎User:Konvicted-07 (Talk)
   * ‎User:MartinRobinson (Talk | History)
   * ‎User:Picapica (Talk | History)
   * ‎User:Red King (Talk | History)
   * ‎User:Sarah777 (Talk | History)
   * ‎User:Sony-youth (Talk | History)
   * ‎User:Taramoon (Talk | History)

I did read the article talk page. Here is the note that I left for User:padraig3uk concerning deletion of the nonsense tag:

The appropriate way to handle this for deletion is through either a prod or an AFD. Please do not add back the nonsense tag. In my opinion, since this may be a hoax, an AFD would be a good way to capture comments related to a hoax. — ERcheck (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I note that padraig3uk did take my suggestion and tag it as a hoax, but did not take it to AFD. — ERcheck (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article will not be deleted unless someone nominates it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy for information. — ERcheck (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But somebody already did. And you deleted the deletion rag!! Kafkaesque or what?!(Sarah777 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It was nominated for speedy deletion — but does not meet the criteria. Thus, for deletion, it needs to be nominated with either PROD or AFD. See the deletion policy link above. — ERcheck (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information added by this edit needs to be removed, please stop adding it back. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you remove a block of comments like that (including one of mine), an explanation of some sort would be in order, don't you think? And I added it back ONCE; "keep" implies more than once. (Sarah777 00:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Actually "Please stop" is perfectly civil, "Stop now" would not be. Once, twice, feel free to apologise whenever you're ready. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'first' occurred by accident as I was replying to it when I got an edit conflict (obviously with your deletion of it); the second time I deliberately added it back to enquire why you deleted it without any explanation. Feel free to apologise whenever you're ready.(Sarah777 01:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have just raised your eidts to this article on WP:ANI. 19:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by One Night In Hackney (talk • contribs)

And who would you be? (Sarah777 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I suspected as much. Now there is an editor who doesn't add comments to his edits! (Sarah777 19:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah please use edit summaries properly please. thanks!--Vintagekits 19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted changes that were made that had no edit summaries! And the comments above yours (Vintagekits) are unsigned; could whoever refrain from leaving unsigned comments of my talkpage? (Sarah777 19:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah, I am not talking about the Proxy Bomb article or any article in particular, I am talking in general. Also I did sign my comment. regards--Vintagekits 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have always found Sarah to be a meticulous editor, go easy on her occasional lapses ... we all have them. :) Abtract 22:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Abstract; but I was wrong on the Proxy Bomb categorisation and my head is currently hanging shamefully! (Sarah777 23:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Why did you remove People from Ringsend section. How exactly is it inappropriate ? Djln

The reason I removed them is that I thought they were not notable. I never heard of them and whoever added them gave no indication as to why they are notable. Regards (Sarah777 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Bear in mind that if there is a wp article on them they have been deemed to be notable already :) Abtract 22:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh S***e!! Never noticed that...two bad hair days in succession....I will undo the damage.(Sarah777 23:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IMGHollyfort_4610w.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigrTex 22:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is "orphaned and obsolete" according to the citation. That sounds like a good reason to put it down! Kill it!(Sarah777 00:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I notice I've called Hollyford "Hollyfort" - another reason to zap it. (Sarah777 00:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Mind you, it's actually better than the version in the article; really shows - you just can't get good help these days. (Sarah777 00:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi there, I don't understand why you have removed the precision from the length of the R710 road in the 'R710 road' article. If a road section is 6.8km, why can't 6.8km be used instead of 7km? I understand that there is probably some kind of wikipedia policy at play here that I don't know about, but surely less granular information (when the information is available at a given accuracy) is a disimprovement? Could you please explain to me your rationale for reverting my changes? Merlante 12:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distance precision: The reason I changed the km to the nearest round figure is that I have applied a template to all Irish roads articles to standardise the layout. Most articles contained only rounded km; people from UK/US constantly added miles using automatic converters. Thus a road was described as 25 km in the original article turned into "the road is 16.62 miles (25 km) long". Which, given the original figure was (as is common practice on NRA publications) a rounded km figure and the miles given completely meaningless "precision". Also, to say "the road is 8 km (5 mi) long" is much less cluttered than writing "the road is 8.5 km (5.31 mi)" - which gives no additional useful information; even assuming the original figure is correct; which it is unlikely to be. The 8.5km above is itself almost certainly rounded. Should we go to the nearest meter, and say the road is 8.495 km long? "surely less granular information (when the information is available at a given accuracy) is a disimprovement?" It could actually be an improvement; road plans are usually available to one tenth of a meter; thus in the example above using the granularity argument we could write that Template:Km to mi is better. Not for anyone who has to read it! (Sarah777 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah, you really need to calm down. You're discussing content with British editors while persistently making offensive and irrelevant remarks (stating that the British are worse than the Nazis, and calling them the Brutish and so on) furthermore you're using the word "troll" when they rise to you bait. Edits like these [1], [2], [3] are uncivilised and have no place on Wikipedia. I, and probably others, have a lot of sympathy for your point of view but this really isn't an acceptable way to communicate it.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lo2u; Firstly, I am calmness personified. It's the pushers of the imperial nomenclature who are getting upset - I have not once complained about their abusive language. Secondly, please read what I said; I said not that "the British are worse than the Nazis" but that Britain aka The British Empire is worse than the Third Reich. Simple statement of fact. That doesn't necessarily make the average Englishman today any worse than the average German circa 1939, does it? So Lo2u, if you want to help, please point out that their attempts to include Ireland in "The British Isles" is offensive. Thank you. (Sarah777 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It may be offensive but if the term exists and is in common use there is inevitably going to be an article on it and the only thing that would change that would be if it were to drop out of use. If there's documented evidence that the term causes offence (and there is) the article should say that, so I've no doubt it was a mistake to take out the references to controversy - and I'm sure they'll be put back in. Nevertheless, it would be very easy for you to explain your objections to the contents of the article without repeatedly and explicitly comparing Britain unfavourably with the Nazis. Please try to understand that whether it is your intention or not, people will find that very provocative. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lo, how can I explain this inoffensively? I detest and object to the word "British" because the British Empire was an Empire worse than Nazi Germany. That is why I find trying to include Ireland in something called the "British Isles" so offensive. Whether you agree or not, whether you like it or not, whether it provokes some people or not, that is my position. If folk want to try and argue that the British Empire was not worse than the Third Reich; then that is something I will forcefully contest. What you ask is that I forsake FACT for the sake of politeness. No can do. I could completely ignore the issue of "Britishness" on Wiki, and would, if some editors were not trying to impose that name on my country which sacrificed a lot for freedom from "the British Empire" and the right to be NOT British - in any sense. (Sarah777 23:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I understand what you're saying, and I think I understood it before. You won't agree with me but I also think there are more diplomatic ways of saying the things you would want to say. "The term British Isles is offensive because the Britain is worse than the Nazis" isn't an argument that will win you any friends because you limit your support to those who agree with the second part - nobody else on the talk page as far as I can tell. More importantly, I've looked through the whole of that talk page (but haven't found time for the archives) and all I've really learnt is that you hate the terms "British" and "British Isles". What I'm wondering is what you're actually trying to do. Do you want a deletion of the page with redirect to either "Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom", a total deletion, a much shortened article saying the term's offensive (like this one) or some sort of drastic redefinition? And I really would be interested to know. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lo, a deletion of the page with redirect to "Britain and Ireland" (the common usage in Ireland), would be non-POV and inoffensive. Then it wouldn't be necessary for me to offend millions by having to repeatedly explain WHY the term "British Isles" is offensive. Regards (Sarah777 09:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Lol, Squeaktroll? Please see Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" and also assumeing good faith. To call me a vandal isnt exactly an argument and my removal of POV cannot be classified as vandalism. Please, SqueakBox 01:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may believe that the British Empire was more evil than Hitler's Nazism (though there are those who would argue this is justifying Nazism I dont believe justifying Nazism is your intention) but this is an extreme minority political belief and to insert that into the geographical encyclopedic article on the British Isles is not helpful in terms of creating a neutral encyclopedia. And to call me a vandal over such a content issue is just silly, SqueakBox!~

Dear Vandal, I appreciate the trollery in your suggestion that being honest about the British Empire justifies Nazism! But what I am doing is explaining WHY attempts to apply the term "British" to Ireland is offensive. this is a difficult task why one is addressing minds conditioned since infancy to imagine the Empire was some sort of benign accident. (Sarah777 08:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Vandal! To whom do you refer? Did you read the WP article I sent re this word? FYI I was brought up to consider the BE benign but then, being a young rebel absolutely rejected that opinion. Now I am not so sure but think this dispute should be carried out in places other than the opening of British Isles. I've put British Empire on my watchlist, SqueakBox 17:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People have explained repeatedly why the term "Britain and Ireland" isn't appropriate so I'm not going to bother. However, you don't seem to be engaging in any sort of meaningful content dispute, instead you're warring on the talk pages. "Britain is worse than the Nazis" (or Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, Satan or whatever) is just an analogy, not a reason why Britain is bad. Even if it were true (and repeatedly inserting the work "fact" everywhere doesn't make it so) the Nazis have nothing to do with why you hate the British Empire and there's no need to mention them any more than there's reason to mention any of those other things. If you want to make a difference rather than score points on the talk page, the way to do that is to show that "Britain and Ireland" is an alternative to the current title. If you've decided that can't be done, I don't know why you're bothering to continue the discussion.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 12:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing the discussion because to refer to Ireland as part of the "British" Isles is offensive. I use the Nazi analogy to show how offensive; the very fact that you question the validity of the analogy is illustrative of the problem. "People have explained repeatedly why the term "Britain and Ireland" isn't appropriate"!!!! Nope, they have NOT!! They have convinced each other. Preaching to the converted. "Britain is worse than the Nazis" is just an analogy, not a reason why Britain is bad. Nope, an analogy isn't a REASON. But the British Empire was as evil as the Third Reich and spanned centuries (right up to Iraq today) - that is WHY the term is offensive. So, if you want to improve the article; give it a name that isn't grossly offensive to many of those living in Britain and Ireland. (Sarah777 13:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah, as an outside observer, I find that your comments about Nazis, "British" cultural identity, etc., are unhelpful to any meaningful discussion regarding the article. Please keep your opinions about the behavior of the British Empire to the proper Wikipedia pages or to yourself. The article has already been clearly marked with the controversy about the naming of the islands, the majority of the world calls it the British Isles (Wikipedia is not central to one English speaking country), and the term "British Isles" is not offensive per se as the name is historical. Illuminatedwax 02:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I wasn't saying that your discussion or use of the term "Nazis" was offensive, I was saying that it was irrelevant to the article as I saw it as an outside observer. I was responding to a complaint left in Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts, and I was merely trying to tell you to stay on-topic in the talk page of British Isles (in addition to adding my opinion on the matter). I don't think my comment was uncivil or incoherent; sorry if there was a misunderstanding. Addendum: when I said "keep your opinions on the proper Wikipedia page or to yourself" I was merely restating that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but that your opinions are very much welcome in the proper places. Sorry if that read as rude. Illuminatedwax 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hello Denis, I'll have a look if you think I can help. I earlier deleted that [4] link because you shouldn't really put it in the infobox and when I tried it it appeared dead. Put it back in under "external links" if you wish. Regards (Sarah777 10:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Well folks, I followed this saga from the start to January 14th 2006 and stopped from exhaustion! Denis, with all due respect, you seem to have difficulty conforming to some necessary Wiki standards.

“The following text posted by Denis O'Neill, Gaulstown. (Poet and playwrite of national acclaim). all information below is accurate and can be verified.”

Remarks like that should never be placed in the body of an article; add to the comment when making a change or put in the Talk Page.

“The town is also home to Christo Bradley”

Only NOTABLE people can be mentioned; those who have a Wiki article about them or who have many hits on Google, for example. At the very least you should explain why someone is notable if his notability is contested.

“The following text taken from the book "Earl of Belvedere" by Denis O'Neill, Gaulstown. (Poet and Playwright of national acclaim). all information below is accurate and can be verified by the author.”

Again, this has no place in the body of the article. If you have written such a book it should be referenced; publisher, ISBN number etcetera. The interesting history which you posted extensively was deleted because it lacked any references. “can be verified by the author” is not a reference. You must cite published sources, preferably at the point in the text where the facts are given.

“The oldest recorded family name still living in the parish is that of the O'Neills, formerly High Kings of all Ireland (for a world record breaking dynasty of over 900 years), the O'Neills in the parish can be traced back to Eoghan Ruadh O'Neill, who gave assistance to sir Richard Tyrrell during the battle of Tyrrellspass in 1597. of course the family name itself traces back to Millesius, son of an Egyptian Pharaoh who proclaimed his dominion over the land he called "the Isle of destiny" about 7000BC “

Again this was unreferenced and reads to me very like invention; all the more reason your edits are being reverted when you supply no acceptable references. A further concern:

Denisoneill (Talk | contribs) at 14:07, January 10, 2007 – you removed wikify and cleanup tags

Revision as of 01:16, January 12, 2007 – you removed very justified wikify tag

Revision as of 01:29, January 14, 2007 - you removed equally appropriate cleanup tag

By this stage I can only conclude that the banning was justified unless you give an undertaking to stop adding unreferenced “history” and removing tags. Regards (Sarah777 11:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Archiving

I set you up an automagic archive. Each archive will be 100kb long, and then it will go to the next archive. The first archive page is User talk:Sarah777/Archive 1, and can grow untill it is a little longer than this page right now. Messages more than 1 month hold are being archived. Does that work? Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered here. ww2censor 14:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stratford, also known as Stratford-on-Slaney, is a small village on the River Slaney in West Wicklow in Ireland. - 14:25, May 19, 2007 Ww2censor

Indeed Ww! That is what I always knew it as - and I was going to call the article by that name till I noticed the sign; checking around I couldn't find much support for Stratford-on-Slaney online; so rather than have someone revert it I settled for Stratford. But I can personally attest that 20 years ago it was universally known as Stratford-on-Slaney in SW Wicklow. (Sarah777 13:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Remember that online is not the only source for such info. Try using a Gazetteer, if you can find one. I have the Gazetteer of Ireland published by the Government Publications office that I presume is still in Molesworth Street. My copy is the 1989 issue and also gives the Irish names, though maybe they have a new one since then. According to this web page a new edition should have been out in 2003. If they do have it, let me know. Also look here. FYI I used to live in West Wicklow! ww2censor 13:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. And the link to An Post seems fairly definitive, doesn't it? My own location down on the farm was only a half dozen miles west of there! While the name was often shortened to "Stratford" in conversation (just as Newtownmountkennedy is spoken of mainly as 'Newtown' locally) - the full name was always understood to be Stratford-on-Slaney. You fancy changing the name? I think we have sufficient evidence. Regards (Sarah777 14:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Go ahead and move the page to the full name and chnage the tinro around to read: Stratford-on-Slaney', also known as Stratford but also make a new redirect page called Stratford on Slaney. Cheers ww2censor 14:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The deed is done.(Sarah777 15:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

... Sarah! Where's your "natural empathy with the UNDERDOG"? :'( --sony-youth^pléigh 22:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the dog is suffering, 'tis kinder to put him out of his misery! (Sarah777 22:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That's harsh. :)) --sony-youth^pléigh 22:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's though love rather than puppy love! (Sarah777 22:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IMG_R747eastwards5077w.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "Cram schools (also known as crammers) are specialized schools that train their students to meet particular goals, most commonly to pass the entrance examinations of high schools or universities." Sounds to me like it fits the bill.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider it more of an informal term than slang. While they wouldn't use it themselves, I don't regard it as pejorative, and I can't think of a better description.

Lapsed Pacifist 10:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following, sourced from [[5]] with/without additional internet sourced confirmation, are no longer extant on the relevant Wikipage while dead Welsh Guards continue to be listed. [6] [7] [8]. At that time the victims of the Birmingham pub bombings were listed [9]; I personally could not list one set of victims without listing the other. Aatomic1 11:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, what does grognardistic mean?

Dear User:1-555-confide, I have often wondered that myself! Haven't a clue; but you can call yerself one after you've done 2,000 edits...and you can give yourself a cute little medal! (Sarah777 22:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Sarah777, thanks for the words of support. Not intimidated by Bastun at all, but I did made a decision in the past not to be involved in a situation where personal attacks are involved. Although I have never been involved with Bastun but once, over some minor edit on Croke Park, there was a tendency there with him to take a hostile posture too. Also, I have witnessed some of his personal attacks with other editors. Otherwise I am not completely off the BI page.Gold♣heart 14:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gold - yes, that seems to be his style; he's at it again on the BI talkpage in relation to a proposed solution I had to the impossibility of getting agreement from the British editors on the issue. The The British Isles and Ireland. (Sarah777 15:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yup, it's a term that is often used. My criticism of the BI page is that the other names, which are very often used, like The British Isles and Ireland, or Britain and Ireland are not even allowed a mention in the article. Also, much of the history, especially from medieval period onwards is pretty much af ork, so too is most of the geography section. There should be a para, near the top, dedicated to the alternate names. For some of those editors to be shouting pov is startling, and makes wonder is there light in the area at all. Gold♣heart 15:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to get through the British editors, for they outnumber the Irish editors by about 16/1, and that's one big failings of WP. Sony has a good record on the page, although I do not agree with him on everything. I am sure that if Ireland was bigger than Britain, then it would be a different story. Gold♣heart 00:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony WAS ok! But I'll find it hard to forgive that totally OTT attack. He was calling for me to be stoned! Even the British Editors (with one exception) didn't lose it like that. Regards (Sarah777 00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ye, I agree with you there, it was a bit strong. I was surprised and I tried to dampen it. Maybe I did more harm than good. Bastun did set the tone of the page, and that's why I usually don't like hanging around editors with a tendency to be abusive. Otherwise I really do need a rest from this page, it gets very "mobish". Gold♣heart 00:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been abusive. On one occasion, I accused Sarah of trolling. Please withdraw that remark. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear (again) which of us you are addressing. (Sarah777 00:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Goldheart. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reduce indent) I am sorry if my remark has upset you Bastun, but sometimes you do attack the editor, and not the content. There is no doubt that you will have a certain strength in numbers on the British Isles page, and it's a pretty safe place for you to be. I find most of the British editors very polite in their exchanges with other editors. I do notice that you have rowed with other editors in the recent past, I do suggest that your input to WP should be greater than it is, and best to keep to the issues. Gold♣heart 01:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I am really sorry that you were blocked. There are a lot of hostile people on Wikipedia who live in hope of some sort of showdown with some editor or other. The whole affair has been very sordid for Wikipedia, from the personal attacks even until today. It must be realised that one is often dealing with very spiteful people on WP, and then the mob rule will swing into action. Remember, success is the greatest revenge. Happy editing in the future, and forget about the tiny people, because they are tiny. Gold♣heart 08:20, 30 May 2007

Thanks Gold - I fight my corner and move on; I never hold a grudge unless it's fun to do so!. There is only ONE editor on my list as a result of all this. Though I'm a bit annoyed with Ben also for closing the AfD so precipitously and driving me into 3RRsville; but Ben is basically a good guy. And thank you Gold for your support in my time of trial!(Sarah777 19:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, you might want to voice your opinion in a proposal I made in Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland#Request for edit. As the discussion has been going on and the page is quite cluttered, here my proposal in short:

Inclusion of variants in the Template:Country data Northern Ireland as follows:

| flag alias-cgf = Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg still used by the CGF (Commonwealth Games Federation)

| flag alias-patrick = Image:Saint Patrick's flag for Northern Ireland.svg

| flag alias-map = Image:Alliance ni flag.png File:Alliance ni flag.png, which I find aesthetically more satisfying than

| flag alias-union = Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg as the only official flag of NI

The defenders of the abolished flag argue that this flag is still used in context with the Commonwealth Games. I think that the inclusions of variants is the first practical step in discontinuing the use of the abolished flag in articles about biographies and international organisations (like the european parties). AFAIK, a map tag is already in use in articles about NI geography; this map symbol was never intended to be used as an icon, and I think the usage of Image:Alliance ni flag.png looks better.

I would welcome your input to this debate greatly.

Kind regards, Dingo 05:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (currently anonymous)[reply]

Sarah, you have breached the 3RR on Britain and Ireland. Whether you agree or disagree with the early closure of the AFD on The British Isles and Ireland, the fact is that it was closed. If you belive the closure was out of process, vandalism, or whatever, then WP:DRV is designed for precisely that purpose. Recreation of deleted articles is not permitted without going through DRV. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britain and Ireland was NOT closed. It was repeatedly blanked, which is vandalism. there is no limit on reverting manifest vandalism. Are you seriously saying that if I were to delete the "British Isles" article or redirect it to "Mongolia" that it couldn't be reverted? The policies I've read say that vandalism is reversible. On occasion someone puts in "Jack Smith is the King of Tallaght" or whatever; and keeps putting it back maybe half a dozen times - I just keep reverting. That's what you do with vandalism. And, the deletion of The British Isles and Ireland was vandalism too. Follow the procedure; what are you all afraid of? (Sarah777 00:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. — Signature^brendel 02:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sarah777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

(1)gross, deliberate breach of WP:AFD policy and procedures by User:Ben W Bell whose deletion was vandalism; my reverts were of vandalism - I was fully prepared to abide by due process - there is no limit to the number of times vandalism can be reverted;(2)biased administration that fails to enforce the policy as laid down, User talk:SqueakBox continued re-inserting the vandalism and breached the 3RR yet no action taken; (3) hysterical abuse by User:sony-youth (which persists after the block) indicates gross prejudice and abusive language by several others and combined with their ignoring of due process as laid out by Wiki policy means this whole thing was effectively a kangaroo court; no rules followed - except be myself, who was blocked.(Sarah777 07:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Decline reason:

reason —No. Stop trolling and wait out your block. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

That template doesn't look right but I don't know how to fix it (Sarah777 07:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah, this was a content dispute and SqueakBox's edits were not vandalism. Just two points of view collided, and edit war erupted instead of peaceful discussion. Revert wars aren't helpful, they disrupt the project, that's why we treat such violations so strictly. Please calm down and try not to take this situation personally. When your block expires, please resort to dispute resolution instead of simply undoing other users' edits. MaxSem 07:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Max, I'm perfectly cool...in fact more so than most of my assailants. Please read the tone and content of the reaction after I created the new article. Squeak DID breach the 3RR - why no action? (He also deleted my notes on his and the article talkpages pointing that out). And it explicitly states that I am allowed to request a lift of the block - which is what I'm doing! I wonder if I undertook to never mention/edit/think of the B***ish Isles again for six months would that get me unblocked? (Sarah777 07:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK, now I'm not so cool. How can I TROLL when I'm blocked. So I assume trolling is what some admin (?) has chosen to call my request for an unblock. Obviously rationality isn't a requirement for adminship. (Sarah777 07:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]