Archives

1,2,3,4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Sarah is away on holidays and won't be back until later this week, but noticed this question. Try this link showing the precise geographical location, so it would seem to be correct. Cheers ww2censor 13:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks....I'm back now! wassup?!!(Sarah777 15:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

They're threatening to ban you for an entire bloody year at Arbcom. Absolutely f**k*** outrageous!

Show them your article creation list, Sarah, I think you probably have the record.

Sure you lose your rag from time to time - but don't we all, especially when faced with extreme provocation and wind-up merchnats....Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA					4	4
	A
	GA					5	5
	B	5	2	7	3	39	56
	Start	2	3	25	122	237	389
	Stub			8	160	317	485
	Assessed	7	5	40	285	602	939
	Unassessed	0	0	0	1	286	287
	Total	7	5	40	286	888	1226

Category:Ireland articles by quality

Hi Sarah777: No, I feel that the Adare bypass article would best remain seperate from the N21 page. I created it as an aside to the Adare page and, if anything, should be merged into that. The bypass is going to impact on Archaeology and the economy of Adare (including property rights) during the construction phase. When the road is completed then I would support merging it into the N21 page. rubensni

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)[reply]

Hello. Unfortunately I can't move it back because I'm not an admin, and in any case I'm not convinced it shouldn't be the primary topic. In my opinion, your best course of action is to contact the admin who made the move (Haemo), file a move request, and/or start a discussion about whether the music style should be the primary topic on the article's talk page. Regards. --Muchness (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Haemo is an Admin not much point talking to him. Sarah777 (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah. Here's what happened and when ... - Alison ^❤ 09:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that. For most of its life the music article was titled Emo (music); then Emo became a dab page and just 2 days ago Heamo made the (rather obscure) music the main page with all other uses relegated. He described the move as a non-controversial move; but now only an Admin (such as yourself - extremely strong hint) can move it back to the dab page. (Btw; the fact an article cannot be moved a second time without Admin tools gives me a great idea of the WP:BEANS variety).

I think it should be moved back and then let Haemo propose making "Emo music" the clear, unambiguous primary meaning of the word. Otherwise I'll have to cut and paste again. Or think of something more inventive!Sarah777 (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I didn't move the article two days ago — I moved it months ago, in October of 2007. I deleted the redirect page, after the article at Emo, which is now at Emo (disambiguation) was moved so that Emo (music) could be moved to Emo, which was an uncontroversial request made by User:Cheeser1, but which he couldn't do because he didn't have admin tools. There was no objection at the time, and this is the first objection that's been raised in the 4 months since then. --Haemo (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno how I missed it - not at all like me. Did you fix it yet? Sarah777 (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the move was consensual at the time, and I didn't really have any opinion on it even then — so I think it would be better if you discussed it on the talk page. I don't really think overturning a 4 month long consensus because of a single disagreement is the right idea — talk to the other editors, and if you get consensus for the move you can contact me, or request a move. --Haemo (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth the effort to right this manifest wrong I asked myself? And I am still awaiting a reply. Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of effort; it's the matter that other editors requested the move, and there was no disagreement; and hasn't been for a number of months. If you now think it should be moved back, well, change their minds and then go ahead and request the move yourself. You could even ask me, and I'd be happy to do so. --Haemo (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sarah! How pronounce in the name town Listowel 2 letter "OW". Like in "Tow" or like in "Towel". (Прон) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.214.103 (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you dont mind me jumping in but in Dublin we pronounce it like LIS TOE EL might be different in other parts of Ireland. BigDunc (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BigDunc. (Прон) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.214.103 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God only knows why I'm here but you seem to have a very dramatic wikipedia life :D I'm from Clare and it's LIS-toe-L here too, that's all. Have fun with your fun filled escapades! Paul5121 (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And a routine denial; I am not GH. The reason I remain so confident that no check will catch me isn't hubris - simply that there is nothing to catch. Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GH is more than familiar with the concept of harassment. That's why he's back here. That's why he's emailing again. And on it goes ... :( - Alison ^❤ 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of now he can't email me! The Great Crash of last weekend leaves me without a mail program; I know it's a cinch to reset - but it involves phoning the Eircom Helpline. Sarah777 (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw sheet! Please GH - you wouldn't like me when I'm cross. Sarah777 (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK. Firstly let me say I'm glad you asked me that. An independent NI (so long as Queenie isn't head of state) - excellent idea. I have long believed it is equally wrong to force the Nationalist population into Britain or force the Unionist population into Eire. And I guess an increasing number of Northern Nationalists and Unionists have more in common with each other than with Britain or the Free State. Secondly, "Brythonic" may be an ancient term but 'tis new to me. I'll just have to plead rampant ignorance on that one. Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, i think a fully independent Norn Iron is probably the future, it's possibly the only compromise nationalists and unionsists could make between each other. I would support this also.

As for British as an age old term, I'm sure you know what a Brythonic language is, especially since (providing you are Irish from way way back) your ancestors probably spoke one of those languages.

Anyway i propose we all abandon the islands, jump on our boats and move back to the Basque Country and take up Euskara! 167.1.176.4 (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that way we'd miss all the fun of the the chuckle brothers (Martin & Ian) doing their double act in Leinster House, while the cosy duopoly of politics in the Republic was mathematically killed dead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brown hair? you can't be full Irish then, we all know the proper ones have black hair.  ; ) 167.1.176.4 (talk) 08:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what passport should my red-haired, freckle-faced mother have applied for? Rusian? ;-)--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English maybe? oh wait we can't get those yet... 167.1.176.4 (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is getting more and more like some institution run by a cult of abusers. 40k edits in "main"; not a single cross word ever uttered - and you get blocked. At least I put myself about as they say; there is simply NO valid excuse for blocking you no matter what self-serving rationalisation the fascists come up with. Plus, the block is totally illegitimate as you are using an undeleted system of categorisation. Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there was no valid warning either. I presume Alison and Fozzie will now wake-up and smell what is going on here? Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison saw your revert and is just about ready to quit the project, truth be known - Alison ^❤ 22:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heck Ali - my revert was because I thought GH's post was totally inappropriate and perhaps intimidating - it was absolutely not directed at you! Sarah777 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and my comment was not as a result of your action at all. Your thoughts were exactly right, IMO - Alison ^❤ 22:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God for that! Don't be intimidated; sticks and stones etc. You should see some of the mail I get from my Wiki-fans!!! Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, please don't refer to other editors, named or implied, as "fascists". In addition to being wholly incorrect, it is also gratuitously offensive and likely to earn you a block yourself for WP:NPA before too long. How many times do you need to be asked - make your point without resorting to name-calling, please. Rockpocket 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought it was a pretty good description. Don't you? And if some goon can block Ardfern then we should all be proud to be blocked, don't you think? And I reckon we'd be rather more interested in your take on the Ardfern block than on my civility (yaaaaaawn!) Sarah777 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, how do I go about asking that certain editors be relieved of Adminship? (This is a serious question). I have a list. You ain't on it. Yet. Sarah777 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ardfern has been unblocked, since he has now agreed to discontinue the categorization that the admin considered to be disruptive or pointy. If you consider that to be a misuse of tools, then I would suggest you politely explain your opinion to admin involved (without name calling) and ask about his reasoning. If that is not satisfactory, you could (politely) request a review at AN, or else open a (polite) RfC. I, personally, recommend editors follow that process of they have a concern with my use of tools, yet oddly not one has taken up that invitation, instead they seem to refer to call me names (and then wonder why no-one takes them seriously). Some admins are also listed at WP:RECALL. If you go through that process, I will be happy to offer my opinion on Ardfern's block.

I'm glad I am not on your "list", but expect I will be before too long unless you begin to appreciate that there is no excuse for name calling. I will not ask politely again: "fascist," "goon" or any other taunt is not acceptable language when referring to another editor. You are walking a fine line. Stop it now, please. Rockpocket 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpocket: Please can you and John and Tyrenius just get off Sarah's case. I know that your intentions are good, but this is now looking very very much like victimisation of Sarah.
Sarah's outburst was in response to what I consider to have been a grossly unfair and out-of-process block of an exemplary editor (Ardfern, and she was basically blocked because she didn't express her indignation in the right way. As below, I have raised this at WP:ANI, and am considering how to take it further. I have a lot of respect for you as an admin, but when it comes to Sarah you are becoming far too trigger-happy. Please, back off. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ty makes another abusive block 'cos I am about to demand his recall. How do I do that now???? Sarah777 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Sorry Rock. No can do, as you see Admin-power abusing fascists like friend Ty. When I see you jump on folk who are calling me names, then maybe I start to listen to you. I guess you know by now that threats (aka 'warnings', are water off the duck-back to me). So, do you reckon Ty is right to abuse his power in a personal dispute? If not - unblock. Sarah777 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed all the drama (I had work to do) but I have made my opinion clear on that elsewhere. Suffice to say this sort of name-calling isn't going to be tolerated anymore, you can complain about that all you want, but it will not get you anywhere except in the blog log. If some one calls you names, then please let me know and I will be pleased to remind them that it is not permitted, like I did to you. Should they continue to do so after being asked to stop, they too will likely end up blocked.

As for your question, I'm not quite sure where this personal dispute is, other than the fact that you took exception to him warning your previously. You appear to be making the same mistake that Vk did: just because you declare someone to be biased or say they have a personal issue you with, does not make them biased or have a personal issue with you.

Please, Sarah. You are a fine contributor and are very well liked. Don't be stubborn over this. Just learn to bite your tongue next time someone angers you and remember that diplomacy always works better around here. I will be happy to help you follow the due process should you feel there has been admin abuse (and that can work, ask Domer) but you need to stick to the rules yourself. Rockpocket 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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:

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 ([2]) 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)[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.

How dare you remove my 'unblock' request. Sarah777 (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove my post which is relevant to your unblock request. As you can see[3] I was restoring your unblock request when there was a ec. Tyrenius (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally untrue that there has been any "series of disputes". I think you are referring to Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777. Tyrenius (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==Admins who shouldn't== Thanks Prime. These are the Admins I wish to remove:

Sarah777 (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am withdrawing this in a spirit of compromise as per below. Sarah777 (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tyrenius has said he has no objection to your being unblocked if you agree to stop making comments that other people might see as abusive. See discussion here. This might be a good opportunity to draw a line under past behavior and try for a fresh start. Are you willing to give it a try? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Slim and Ali; I don't really set out to get into these rows - just the Ardfern block seemed so OTT the red mist descended (as it does). But as I am astonished that you actually paid attention to my unblock request I will make a supreme effort. To be nice even to un-nice folk such as....eh....nobody I can think of right now. I would especially like to apologise to Rockpocket for being somewhat rude. Sarah777 (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Sarah, and thanks for agreeing to battle the red mist. :-) Happy editing. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, welcome back, Sarah. And an apology to me is not necessary. I don't mind people being blunt, the key is to be politely blunt ;) Rockpocket 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, Rockpocket nails the issue nicely. The thing is, Sarah, that people are focussing on your .... umm ... "rudeness" and skipping your message entirely. They switch right off and this is so working against you. If you tone it down a bit and state your case clearly and deliberately, I guarantee you you'll get a lot more listeners - Alison ^❤ 20:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Dear oh dear

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)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Per agreement and per discussion at WP:ANI. Sarah agrees to make a supreme effort to not repeat this behaviour. Request handled by: Alison ❤ 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's 3am here and I just logged in to see what was happening here. I know you don't set out to get into these things. Unblocking now - let's talk about it later on - Alison ^❤ 11:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Let's see how my civility program goes!! I sometimes think that some folk know what buttons to push to get a reaction and I'm stoopid if I'm playing their game. (Heck, strike that. I'm stoopid. Period.) Some good comments made by Admins (unreal isn't it?!) on ANI page about the type of comments that go unremarked, never mind get punished - often by Admins themselves (present company obviously excepted). Maybe someone is actually paying attention ...I am by nature very optimistic as well as very ill-tempered (!_!) Sarah777 (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloimey! You're taking up a lot of WP:AN/I today! Good to see you back despite your 'fiery Irish temper'! ^uh-oh!

I think that we should have one day a year without any Admin intervention at all; it would be an interesting experiment to see if Wikipedia functioned better or worse as a result. Best wishes, --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know they tried that in Holland at some major road junction. Removed the lights, lines, signs - everything - on the grounds that the fear of being rammed would make everyone careful. I never did hear how it worked out. Sarah777 (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably because everyone involved is dead. ;-D SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh! Gold heart and the "Racist Remarks" thread. *sigh* - Alison ^❤ 20:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WB Sarah, wiki would be a much poorer place without you. - Galloglass 22:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I keep trying to tell them Gallo ! Sarah777 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article about your traffic experiment here. A success, apparently. (Now let's get rid of all the Admins!) --Major Bonkers (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like fun :) SirFozzie (talk) 05:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of the admins. Will I be taken out and shot, or just asked to defenestrate myself? ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:
User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Wikidrama --Major Bonkers (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkers, I am considering making a legal threat. How does one go about that? Sarah777 (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly in a synchronisitic kinda way I spotted yesterday a shop in Kilcock called "Dick The Butcher". It was closed and derelict. Sarah777 (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. flaminglawyer^c 22:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is simply delightful and marvellous to see such fine vigilance and constructiveness from a Wiki-editor. Jolly good spot Sir - how could I contest? Btw, I think I love you. XXX Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm sure we'll find something for 852. Leave it for now - if we don't someone else will delete it quick enough! Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sarah777. I hope you'll understand, my revert is an apolitical revert. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Whereas removing part of an actual quotation one does not like... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oi! Bastun I didn't remove nuffin'. Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golly Gosh I did. Sorry; I was working off the previous edit diff and didn't even notice it was a quote. Your objection stands Bastun....but....GoodDay, I think you have missed the point. Sarah777 (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll try and remember the chalice, but I'm very suburban - hardly go into the An Lár more than a few times a year! I worry about your intentions towards the series of horrid little articles though - I didn't get where I am today without being paranoid. And I'd suggest (humbly as befits the new me) that if Arbcom ignores WP:IE or its equivalents then Arbcom has lost the plot. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think such timelimes would be a better way to organize this information than hundreds of stubs with usually 1 or 2 lines. There is a good biography stub about Donnchad Midi. But then 4 other tiny stubs, each containing one sentence and no other content, are created to mention an event in his life: 766 in Ireland, 770 in Ireland, 778 in Ireland, 797 in Ireland. If there had been a timeline then anybody with the info could have inserted it in a moment instead of having to create 4 "articles", and readers could see all the information and other events of the period in one place. My guess is that many readers will lose patience if they try clicking their way through all these stubs to learn about early Irish history. Imagine the opposite situation: There already is a timeline with a total size like a normal article, and then somebody suggests to split it into more than 100 one- or two- line stubs. How many would support that? PrimeHunter (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I despair that some editors continue to ignore the fact that this is a "work in progress". Again, I wonder why? No coherent explanation has yet been produced. Sarah777 (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a timeline for several centuries existed then it could easily be split into one century or a decade when sufficient information is added. It seems likely it will take a very long time before a typical year before 1100 will have a reasoanble size for an article, if ever. Months in recent years have their own "global" article, for example January 2008 (where most days contain much more than old Irish years), but that doesn't mean old years are divided into months when there is almost no information about individual months. If there is hundreds of times more information about recent than old years then it's not practical to reserve the same number of pages for them. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing impractical about having a page per year for Ireland. So why the fuss? Sarah777 (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on that, and so do many others. That's why point 3 in Help:Merging and moving pages#Merging was written. I'm not in any way anti-Irish and I don't want to delete a single word of Irish history. I just think it should be organized in a way that doesn't require readers to change between so many tiny pages. I recently proposed a merger of 54 prime number related articles (my main interest) at Talk:RSA numbers, and I expect to perform the merger soon. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll just have to disagree. I don't see any impracticality. And (unlike you) the editors involved in the creation of this series are unanimous in their support for building the years separately. I see no valid reason for imposing a preference on the active editors in this case; other than to discourage them - as the category deletion has already done by triggering the absurd blocking of Ardfern. Sarah777 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's really the Bell Shrine I'm after :-)

The arbcom bad idea might apply to Ardfern's Year-in-Europe categories, but not much else. Like you saw, there's more than one person thinks these are a bad idea everywhere, not just Ireland.

As far as the info in the year articles goes, I would want it nearly all to stay. I can see that things like 1999 in Ireland are needed, just disagree with the idea of splitting into a lot of small articles rather than fewer large ones. I'm not bothered by consistency: sticking everything in 20th century in Ireland would make it a mile and half long, so the individual years need to stay; 6th century in Ireland would never be too big. Problem with the current system is that there are many things that can never be fitted into a year article that could fit in a timeline or century one. Like, err, and, umm, and, well I can't tell you exactly what right now but it will come to me. BHG said she'd bring this up at WT:IE, so I'll wait for her to do that, but in the meantime I'll bodge something up in a sandbox to show what I have in mind. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, bodge away, but I'll continue to harbour my suspicions. This is my favourite recent Wiki-image (after the picture of the Seldom-spotted Wiki-admin above):

Sarah777 (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the image needs another caption to fit the situation. "creates stubs" or "creates categories" would be more accurate than "creates content" which everybody here supports. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that the current caption accurately reflects the situation. Again, the continued refusal to acknowledge the fact that stub-creation is "work in progress" is noted. Sarah777 (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are now into collecting barnstars, not blocks, and you deserve one for this! Tyrenius (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		For the funniest post of the year. Tyrenius (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ty. You have just taken a Quantum leap in my estimation :-) Sarah777 (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try. ;) Ty 17:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I thought it was very funny too. I hope that I too can one day be rehabilitated in your estimation; I am sorry you were unhappy with the actions I took at the list article. I hope you can begin to see that I was acting for the best and was certainly not in any way biased against you personally. As I've said elsewhere I find your views rather refreshing sometimes. However, just to be a pedantic scientist for a moment, you do know that a quantum leap is actually the smallest possible change in something? From the article, "a quantum leap is not necessarily a large change, and can in fact be very insignificant." Sorry for my pedantry, and my best wishes to you. --John (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that John is a science teacher. I think we are dealing here with the "popular usage" as opposed to the "scientific usage", and, as stated in Quantum leap, "the two uses are different when it comes to the magnitude of the change or advance in question." :) Ty 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. It is an interesting phrase with implications that are paradoxical, ambiguous or unclear, depending on the context. It can mean either a step change, which may be radical and important, or the tiniest possible change. Two-sided as quantum reality often is. I hope you both realise I was being whimsical in my pedantry. --John (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm not having such a rare accolade undermined in any way!!! Ty 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Having considered the matter for several seconds I must conclude that my original use was spectacularly appropriate. Sarah777 (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do be careful, Sarah. The geographical area under discussion includes the nation which whose third-in-line to the throne was sent off to a country on the far side of the world to "fight and kill as he was trained to do"? The said trained killer is now back in these islands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BHG - I'll keep the scullery door locked and a bolt on the bottom of the half-door....and obviously we have no chimney or windows owing to the taxation laws. But shure we have d'oul pigs to keep us warm and even a trained killer would suffocate with de smell! Sarah777 (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May the pigs protect you :)

But Sarah, isn't a strange thing to be from a country whose head of a state is patron of a Centre For Peace and Reconciliation, and who says things like "conflicts tend to produce triumphant winners, broken losers", and then find that the woman from the next door dispatches her grandson off to "fight and kill as he was trained to do"? I mean, isn't it a bit dodgy having these sort of violent folk as neighbours? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to read this. Oh, and of course, essays like that one are always about other people. The truth will out! 91.64.29.241 (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (Sorry different IP, same user)[reply]

Excellent essay by the sound of it. And of course what I'm seeking is to remove British nationalism from this area. And bear in mind that Imperialism is a form of Hyper-Nationalism that gave us the British Empire; The Reich's Master Race and the Belgian Congo to name but a tiny sample. And now a word of caution; any further comments by anon IP's on this subject on this page will be terminated with extreme prejudice. Yaknowwadimean?

Quote from the essay: Wikipedia is a vastly influential website with significant socio-political clout on a global scale, is widely used as a first reference, and among the more foolish is taken as an ultra-reliable source. The attractions for those tempted to push a nationalist point of view are obvious.

This would appear to explain the panic amongst certain Anglo contributors when their national myths are challenged - and means those of us committed to WP:NPOV must redouble our efforts to counter such hyper-nationalism (aka imperialism).

And we need to redouble our efforts to explain why raising a very nationalistic form of "verifiability" over factuality (a religious creed at Wiki) leads to a systematic imposition of the dominant British and American POV that is poisoning Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha - I'm afraid that the reason it's called the British Empire is that it had participation from all corners of the British Isles; Ireland's contribution including (off the top of my head) one of the first Governor-Generals of India, our countries' greatest general, and one of the great politicians of Empire. Or is BHG's point (he asked innocently!) that Irishmen don't need any training... ?!--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help us out here, Bonkers?

I have lost my copy of the list of countries to which the army of the Irish Free State or the Republic of Ireland has been dispatched for the purpose of killing people. There have been several deployments as UN peacekeepers, but I can't remember any countries where they ave been sent to kill people. Can you point me to any such list?

I have also lost my list of sons and grandsons of Irish presidents who have been sent overseas to "fight and kill as {a young Englishman} was trained to do". Can you help me complete that list, or are we to conclude that in the modern era, state-managed killing of people on the far side of the world was just something to which Irish people were lured by the aforesaid Empire while they were compelled by force of arms to bed part of it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkers - all occupied nations have their quislings and collaborators and colonists. Even the legal fiction that Ireland was British only started in 1800 by which time the global Imperial genocide was well under way. The point is that as soon as the Irish had universal suffrage they voted to get out; and fought to get out, again and again from the arrival of the first Normans to the departure of the last British Army man. Being not the least bit averse to Godwinism - what you are saying is akin to claiming that Norwegians/Norway were part of the Third Reich in the same way that Germany was because of Quisling and his pals. My new-found civility precludes comment on your extremely offensive claim. I would ask that you try and understand that what you said above is no less offensive than claiming that the Jews were part the same Reich because some of them collaborated with the Nazis. Sarah777 (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

the Irish experience of Empire extends beyond, and is much more nuanced than, simply victim status - guess that depends what you mean by "Irish". I like English patriot Wellington's reaction to being called "Irish" because he was from Dublin - "Just because one was born in a stable doesn't make one a horse".

Remember, no Empire on Earth could survive if it didn't have it's settlers and/or local professional and administrative lackeys to do their dirty work (for substantial reward usually). To get back to the modern example of the Reich; there was never a shortage of collaborators in any of the two dozen countries they occupied. And don't worry - I neither expect nor would appreciate a humorous to this. Remember, in many former colonies the first item on the agenda is payback to the local former employees of the colonial state. In Ireland that was very mild in form - maybe too mild. Perhaps that's why we have stamps of Edmund and still some streets named after nasties such as the man from the stable. Sarah777 (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bonkers, you are much more thoughtful than your name implies :) But I think you are mistaken to say that Ireland moved to define itself in terms of Catholicism and nationalism. Quite the contrary: that identity developed almost as a last resort after the alternatives were eliminated. In 1798, the unifying inclusive vision of the United Irishmen was savagely crushed, and the Act of Union promised Catholic emancipation but never delivered it, leading to the development of an innovative and still dominant form of mass organisation to champion that goal. Even so, the Home Rule movement of the late 19th century was largely non-sectarian (and had significant protestant elements in its leadership), but the assinine failure of Westminster to enact Home Rule in 1886 or 1892 led to development of the monolithic cultural nationalism which eventually came to dominate, but only after the British screwed up Home Rule for a third time and then made a further massive blunder by executing the leaders of 1916. Even then, the 26 counties might now not have coalesced around a tribal self-definition if the war of independence had been avoided, as it might have been if Horace Plunkett not sabotaged the Convention in 1919. As George V said after 1922, "what fools we were not to have passed Mr Gladstone's Bill when had the chance"; but even then, the stupid rigidities of the treaty hardened attitudes and entrenched essentialist definitions. The 26 counties spent most of the rest of 20th century recovering from the chaos around partition and independence, turning in on itself in pursuit of De Valera's pipedream. That long period of readjustment in recovery for colonisation is not unique to Ireland, but the slow emergence from post-traumatic shock which began in the 1960s was strangled by the explosion of the sectarian statelet to the north, which utterly overshadowed the massive optimism arising from entry to the EU. The Celtic Tiger (whose chronology parallels that of the NI peace process) brought a new confidence with less need to seek essentialist definitions of Irishness, and as for the Catholic bit? I think you are out of date there. One snippet says it all. I was listening to debate on an RTE current affairs show, about some public body in crisis (can't recall which). The exasperated critic finally lost his patience, telling the official head that his organisation was failing so utterly disastrously that it was in danger of becoming as irrelevant as the Catholic Church. Ireland is changing a lot, in complex ways ... as the T-shirt said, "wear a condom, just in Casey". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's fine. And again I am really impressed by the number of unexpected editors taking an interest in Irish history! Sarah777 (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you shouldn't be too surprised by my interest in Irish history, as I did a full year studying pre-Viking age Ireland as a undergrad and have scores of those wiki articles on my watchlist (as well as creating a bunch!). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I can't see your watchlist Deacon - We could expand on what the sources say and discuss; sometimes I'm amazed that several sources get a date the same or to within a year or two so far back; especially given that dates are widely quoted in Roman history that can only be approximate. In fact you could give a hand here adding references; sometimes I don't carry refs over into the year-in-Ireland articles because they are generally not "in-line" so one can never be sure that they cover a specific event. Sarah777 (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed that several sources get a date the same or to within a year or two so far back; especially given that dates are widely quoted in Roman history that can only be approximate.

In general, that's the effect of manuscript compilation rather than independent verification. I.e. historical writing in Ireland doesn't seem to have got going until the latter half of the 6th cent., and the information for the period before that was often added centuries later. The earliest Irish sources use Latin, only very later Irish (and look at language use in the Annals of Ulster for a guide to that!). The first historical set of annals appear to be the Latin *Iona Chronicle, a series of notes on yearly events incorporated later into the *Chronicle of Ireland. For instance, much or most of the pre-585 material in the Annals of Innisfallen and the Annals of Ulster cannot have been added before 913. They're compiling material using continental sources for general European/Christian stuff and genealogies and oral tradition for earlier Irish dates, and guestimating points of synchonization (e.g. who was living at the time of St Patrick [which they believed to know the date for], and thusly onwards and backwards). The latter aren't historically useful, and as I said the only reason they may be similar in different sources is because those different sources were originally the same. If you have access to it, Kathleen Hughes Early Christian Ireland: Introduction to the Sources is something you may find useful, and though it is becoming a tad outdated by other stuff, it's a good place to understand how all this stuff works without getting too bogged down. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hunted for a good example for you of anachronism which will make it pretty obvious to you. E.g. AU 467:

Bas Oiter Pendragen regis Anglie cui sucsessit filius suus, .i. Cingh Arrtur, .i. do orrdaig an bord cruinn.

"Death of Uter Pendragon, king of England, to whom succeeded his son, King Arthur, who instituted the Round Table"

Should say it all! All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord is Pendragon dead? When did it happen? Sarah777 (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that lad who was "trained to fight and kill" got let loose? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• "You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God, the British journalist,
• But seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to."

- kinda sums up my own sentiments on the Wiki verification standards. Sarah777 (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sarah. How pronounce the second letter "U". Like "U" in "United" or like "ОО" in "Pool". (Прон) (87.126.214.103 (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

As in "oo". Sarah777 (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (Прон).(87.126.214.103 (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Is there a wikiproject for these? I noticed 848_in_Ireland (etc) while doing some work on nonexistent categories. —Random832 16:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland covers it, though it is really the work of about four or five editors. Sarah777 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

848 in Ireland is now a better year than most, but I'm not sufficiently taken with the idea of year articles to go and look for stuff to add to them, or to add it as I write things. I might feel more inclined to flesh out timelines. Yes, that is a feeble attempt at blackmail. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a timeline looks like - except one of those wall-charts. btw - a lot of red links in 848 - have you got some readables on all those stiffs? Sarah777 (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already have Ólchobar done in my head, and I'll do Tigernach. Timelinefrog is plodding through Kings of Connacht and Leinster, so I'll leave those two for him. If you've got a name and date and a genealogy and one or two events, that works out to a couple of hundred words by the time it's all done. Add in a curiosity of some sort - an interesting byname, subject of a poem, being an abbot as well as a king like Ólchobar, living on a crannog in Loch Gabhair for Tigernach - and the world's your oyster.

A timeline would just be a decade or a century on a page. Someone has created a Timeline of British history (1000-1499) (O RLY?), or, less controversially, there's Timeline of 7th century Muslim history. Just merge all the years - they wouldn't get deleted, just redirected to the timeline. To make the redirects work the pages would best to include HTML anchors, so that the redirect jumps to the right part of the page. You can use the section titles (like User talk:Sarah777#Year in country articles should jump to this section), but if they get renamed it doesn't work any more. Anyway, I'll do one and let you see it. I wouldn't expect anybody to buy a pig in a poke. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As you can well imagine I have a very open mind! Sarah777 (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sara, I have seen too the 848_in_Ireland, and I have seen that it's the only article on the 848 in Europe and in 848 by country categories. Maybe all the 84x years could be merged on a 840s decade in Ireland article so we don't have so many mini-articles, since a per-decade granularity is probably enough for most countries and decades, and specially relevant years can get their own article if necessary On the other hand, I'll wait some time to see if this initiative grows and becomes an useful resource for wikipedia. *If* it becomes a unholy mess of difficult-to-navigate smallish articles (I hope that it doesn't), *then* I'll complain again and suggest that it is merged on per-decade articles and work towards that. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.D.:I was objecting because most per-year-per-country articles are just an enumeration of facts already on the per-year article, like Category:1016_in_England. The ones for Ireland are a bit more complete, but I still find they would be better on a article coverig a whole decade --Enric Naval (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A timeline article already exists - Timeline of Irish history. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, hum, it appears that 848 in ireland is not linked there, actually, no "in ireland" article from 795 to 980 is listed since "852" is linked to the year [[852]] :( Also, if someone was to link the year and then detail the event too, you get a mix of info repeated on both the timeline and the article, items that appear on one of the articles and don't appear on the other, like on 980_in_Ireland, and items that don't appear on neither the 980 page nor the timeline..... --Enric Naval (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed agressive nonsense. Sarah777 (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing WP:HARASS by Traditional unionist Sarah777 (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now notified 5 Admins, four of whom have either blocked me or threatened me in the recent past, of the insertion of pov; edit warring and breach of WP:3RR by TU. The contrast between the speed with which several of them pile in on my alleged "incivility" and the complete nil response (apart from Sir Foz who reacted in a manner confirming his unfitness for office) is noted. Sarah777 (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Sarah. Notwithstanding BHG's tantrums, I'll bite. What is the problem, exactly? Rockpocket 00:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I had a look and no-one has violated WP:3RR (yet), though both you and TU are very close to it. That doesn't mean to say that you both haven't been edit-warring, though. I don't really see what in these comments constitute "harassment," [4] [5] but as GoodDay said, once the accusations of "POV" emerge, things tend to go downhill quickly. If you wish to remove such comments, then absolutely do so. But counter-accusations are likely to inflame, rather than defuse tensions.

For what its worth, my opinion on the content dispute is as follows: this is a new low. I really can't believe so much effort has gone into arguing over whether the adjective "occupying" should precede "British Forces". Really. Who the hell cares? Rockpocket 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously TU who started the warring does. I object to you describing BHG's support for me as a "tantrum" btw. Seriously. Sarah777 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And note the number of editors who have joined this "lame" edit war. I suggest Rock, that you just don't get it re British history in Ireland, do you? Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not her support of you I was referring to. It was her attack on my attempts to defuse a situation by discussion. I fear how she will represent my comments here. I guess I don't get it, but whatever history there is, it must be incredibly important to justify warring over a single adjective that makes almost no difference to the point of the sentence in an obscure article on an online encyclopaedia. Rockpocket 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't speak for her obviously but I'd be very surprised if BHG made anything of all this - not really her style. She's a "move on" kinda gal - what I try to be but can't really do! Sarah777 (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sarah. I'm apolitical when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry G'Day - your record over a wide range indicates a pro-British viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that so long as you keep it away from your editing. Sarah777 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no pro-British PoV to hide? If I were por-Unionist/British, I'd be opposing Republic of Ireland being moved to Ireland (state). I haven't accused you of being pro-Irish in your edits? Have I? GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a compliment, not an accusation. Why do you imagine it would be a negative? And I can't see how that would colour your views on the RoI misnomer issue in either case. Sarah777 (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia - political PoV edits are frowned upon. That's why as a Canadian republican, I don't protest Elizabeth II being in Stephen Harper's Infobox content or dispute the existance of the articles Monarchy of Canada, List of Canadian monarchs etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should? All that is required for the bad guys to thrive is for the good guys to hide as Edmund Burke (member of the collaborationist class) said. Sarah777 (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah! I'd rather stick with facts. What I want & what is, are totally different things. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel your pain. Fortunately I'm not in that position. Sarah777 (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite alright. I just don't want to see you getting into trouble. Rightly or wrongly, the Administrators may be watching. It's all about reputation Sarah, if you get a bad rep with the Admins, it can come back to haunt you. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think I don't appreciate Admin bias?!! But surrender to the Bad Guys is prohibited by my genetic code. Unlike, say, the Italians (barring Giano of course). Sarah777 (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just be careful. I don't want to loose you. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit - please leave comments on users' talk pages rather than their user pages--Cailil ^talk 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - why don't you try leaving a comment on his talk page! You'll find there are technical issues. Sarah777 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, please think about this. If you wish to communicate with Fozzie, then use email, but editing the user page of someone who has made it clear that they do not welcome your comments is probably not a good idea. Fozzie is having a rather stressful time at the moment. I'd just give him some space and I'm sure he will talk with you at a suitable time. Rockpocket 01:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK Rock - just for you. Sarah777 (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sarah. I appreciate it. Going to admins for advice when you have an issue like this is a good thing to do. I assure you, I will always attempt to give any concerns you have the exact same attention as I would when there are concerns about you. It seems there there may be some compromise on the issue under dispute, so it looks like everyone can move forward. Rockpocket 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. I will leave the Foz strictly alone (though I don't think I was excessive). Sarah777 (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't you, Sarah, trust me. It was just the very last straw on some issues regarding burnout. I'm tired of all of it. ALL of it. I'll unprotect the talk page when I log back in, whenever that is (if that is). (Yes, This Is the Real Fozzie) 71.245.236.176 (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Foz! Leave the page protected as long as you need - I was too self-absorbed in my latest spat to notice anything else. Sarah777 (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah, I noticed you posted to Fozzie's user's page. It's clear that he's already seen your message. If he doesn't want to get involved, please respect that, and give him space. There are lots of other admins, and you should try someone else. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above - message received. Sorry to hear Foz is stressed - don't want to worsen that. Sarah777 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. Crum375 (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I actually like Foz! Sarah777 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just got the post, seems to have been resolved. Take care, --Domer48 (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah, regarding your comments on Giano's talk page. Remember that admins are asked to enforce our policies. WP:BAN is pretty explicit and, were we to follow your dicta, then we would be in direct conflict with it. Surely you are not suggesting an admin abuses our policies?

I'm not saying that this policy is good or even effective, but it is established. If you have an issue with that, then you should attempt to change the message, not shoot the messenger. If you can generate consensus to change that policy then all the admins will fall into line behind your proposals, like the dutiful servants that we are. I'm assuming that is the goal here, right? Rockpocket 07:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm certainly not implying that Admins should make up policy - far from it. But I've seen enough variation in approach in matters such as my own personal favourite, civility, to realise that de facto Admins interpret the law and when they make an error the instinctive reaction of the rest is to support the miscreant Admin. In one memorable (to me anyway) case I was blocked by R Fiend; it was conceded by the reviewing Admin the block was bad but I was left blocked anyway on vague civility grounds.

Y'know, it could be down to this Anglo-American mindset v the freedom-loving people. In America they love their lawmen to lock people up (over 1% of the entire population!!) and/or kill them; in the UK polls show that they are the most enthusiastic of all Europeans for Capital Punishment; consistently 80% or more in favour. In Eire, this land of advanced civilization, support for judicial murder is very much a minority thing confined to the intellectually challenged and (not necessarily the same thing) Unionists.

So what looks to some folk like "just following orders" looks to us from a different culture as enjoyment of inflicting punishment.

So yes, the rules should be changed - but as you know they won't be. We need far more continental Europeans here, especially Italians, Spaniards and French. Maybe some Bulgarians as well. Sarah777 (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, Sarah. Except BHG is, unless I'm mistaken, a daughter of one of those enlightened civilizations and she appears to appreciate the merits of WP:BAN. So I'm not sure your analysis holds up. Rockpocket 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You can supply the horse with water; you can't make him drink. Sarah777 (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

49% actually, but don't let the facts get in the way. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad enough at 49%....but obviously the civilising influence of the Emerald Isle and the Continent is starting to have an effect 'cos for years it was around the 80% mark. Still the overwhelming support for massive incarceration and death in the Anglo-Saxon world stands up fine. Does America not have the highest proportion of its population in prison in the developed (and probably the whole) world? Is the figure not greater than 1% of the population as announced a few days ago? The greatest Gulag Archipelago in the modern world is the US Prison System. Is the UK not the worst in Europe? Stop quibbling - them is facts. Instead of defending the indefensible y'all should reflect and repent. Sarah777 (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if you had to live among the Nazi-colonialists every day, perhaps you would support the death penalty too. Don't judge them unless you have walked a day in their jackboots. Besides, I have a developed some respect for the US Prison system, it keeps the hedge rows and pavements outside my place of work nice and tidy. Chain gangs are great. Just think how amusing it would have been to have them in Ireland during the Troubles. They could have made them white wash the murals. Rockpocket 17:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, why not bring back slavery and public flogging. At least then you could no longer maintain the illusion that America is morally superior to the Taliban. Fortunately I don't have to live (yet) in a country that reckons either hand-chopping or child-frying is a form of justice! Sarah777 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, tar and feathers is the Irish way isn't it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know ONIH, I am becoming increasingly less surprised by remarks like that from you. Compared to bombing Baghdad "tarring and feathering" is indeed small beer - and very targeted; unlike the indiscriminate mass murder by B52 that your countrymen are currently engaged in. Sarah777 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, on all sides, extrajudicial shooting, and plenty of bombs, and punishment beatings and kindnappings and internment-without-trial. Ireland has had quite enough brutal violence of its own to merit a little caution in claiming too much moral superiority over other parts of the world when it comes to human rights. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luv these discussions. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public flogging would not keep our hedgerows tidy, so I wouldn't support that. But one this I have learned living in countries across 4 continents is that almost everyone thinks their country is morally superior to everyone elses. Ireland may be judicially progressive, and if that floats your ethical boat then you can feel justifiably smug in a wiki full of Anglo Americans (but would be embarrassed should a Swede wander it). But if secularism is your moral bag, then your country would be jostling with the Taliban (and the Midwest) in the naughty corner of religious indoctrination. Nationalism is a funny thing. Well, it makes me laugh anyway. Rockpocket 19:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ONIH etc, without meaning to be uncivil; yer full of it! The Irish State does not endorse knee-capping or "extrajudicial shooting, and plenty of bombs, and punishment beatings and kindnappings and internment-without-trial." In the same way "The West" claims (endlessly) moral superiority over China, the Muslim world, Communist States etc etc etc I thing Eire (and many other European countries) can indeed claim substantial moral superiority over other Western countries; most specifically the US and UK. Which isn't to say Eire is innocent; but in the real world all things are relative. And Rock, really - secularism! This is 2008 - if you go back some years all countries were dominated by religious nutters. And re "Nationalism" - that makes me laugh too - not least because of the pathetic belief by the vast majority of Britons and Americans that they stand for some political and moral principles when the rest of the world see, yes, grotesque nationalism and mind-boggling hypocrisy and double-standards tailored to national self-interest. Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 11 March

2008 (UTC)

Good rule of thumb for you guys as you obviously can't figure it out for yerselves:

• Nationalism opposed to Imperialism - good.
• Nationalism that is Imperialistic - evil.

OK, that is a massive simplification; but I reckon I'm dealing with the remedial class! Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's just fine and dandy to tar and feather or kneecap someone as long as it's in a good cause? *scratches head* One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather depends doesn't it? In war situations the "law" is not to deliberately kill innocents. No head scratching required. Next you'll be claiming that there is something wrong with suicide bombings per se - rather than how they are targeted!!! Jeez, spare me! Sarah777 (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Irish State (sic) does not endorse... punishment beatings and kindnappings and internment-without-trial." Hmm. The anti-war protestors at Shannon may disagree with you there - not to mention those who've travelled through Shannon in a private jet on their way to Cuba... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said - these things are relative. Personally, I'd tar and feather all those who secretly facilitate rendition flights and transporting US troops to Iraq. Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is a matter of some pride that a jury refused to convict people who attacked a US warplane at Shannon. Sarah777 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, indeed :-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I notice two strange facts: in the 19h. century, a lot of Irishmen emigrate to America; in the 21t. century, America locks up more of its population than any other country. Hmmmm... it makes you think!--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkers, anything that makes you think can only be a good thing. Sarah777 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miaooow!  :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just love you're new hair colour! Sarah777 (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! When I changed my actual hair colour to a similar shade, a 13yo friend asked "if you were going to go to the trouble of changing it, why didn't you choose a nice colour?" --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha - that's a very good response, Sarah! Meanwhile, I'm very concerned at this newspaper article that reports that the Irish colonists and imperialists in America have been banned from singing their favourite English ballard. Such cruelty clearly deserves a penal sanction!--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was Winston Churchill really anti-Semitic? Dunno. But as for Danny Boy I rather like it - it is only depressing in the sense of "The Fields of Athenry". I read that another bar in Manhatten is going to have his patrons sing Danny Boy 1,000 times over two days on Paddy's week-end. So if you want to give those English tonsils a good work-out hop on a plane! Sarah777 (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just touching base, I hope you didn't thought that me going ranty-ravey over on TER/AE was in anyway aimed at you. I'm completely burned out on this whole thing, trying to keep two sides from tearing each other apart and getting abused for it. I was hoping a long wikibreak would allow me to no longer react angrily to the usual suspects acting in the usual way, but obviously I'm not as good at the de-stressing part as I am at the stressing up part :P :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No...I just get annoyed (surprise!) that folk keep referring to the recent flurry of blocks as being related to The Troubles, when they had nothing to do with "The Troubles" or the Arbcom case (which I wasn't involved in) - it was about being blocked by Admins with whom one was in dispute and my reaction to same which was deemed "uncivil" by other Admins. It is too easy to characterise my blocks as just part of the ongoing tribal war that is being sorted out by long-suffering neutral Admins when it was about something totally different.

Sarah777 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. TU and harass. Sorry for the delay in replying. I've been away. These are not however issues I intend to get involved with now. Ty 02:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look and tell me if this is good. I got the idea from the Australia road pages. Limbo-Messiah (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! The font looks great; is the green background a bit too lime-green and not enough blue-green; should it be a bit darker? Sign is great - is the road lenght correct? Sarah777 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Colour is hard to get correct. It depends on individual monitors. Also, when you print it's different again. The Traffic Signs Manual 1996 doesn't prescribe any specific Green Yellow or Blue. It just says Green Yellow and Blue. The distances are as good as I can get them. Until the NRA make their Chainages available or publish any stats, we won't know. It's a bit tricky for some roads. Where to start measuring because of Ring Roads, like the M50 and the Cork Ring Road. I believe that the National Routes will eventually be downgraded to Regional Routes pretty soon inside ring roads. So I measure from it's routes junction with the ring road. For interurbans that are part National Route and part Motorway, humm, don't know what to do yet. Anyway i thought it would make Irish Road pages look a bit more classy. Must say, this (right) looks magnificent in the routeboxLimbo-Messiah (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly looks classy! I wonder - if we put the destination list plus shield in the box (as you did for N51) do we need a shield over at the top left? Does it look cluttered; duplication? Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's better with both - can't make my mind up. Sarah777 (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well atleast noone can stick in (X mi) after the distances in brackets.Limbo-Messiah (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a handy translation of the Irish name provided! Sarah777 (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sarah777:

I don't have a position to take, political or otherwise, with respect to the article of various titles, now currently called List of events named massacres. I do keep it watchlisted just because it is a fascinating exercise in trying to force an emotional description into a logical construct. I noticed your recent deletion and wondered if you had seen the new set of criteria for the list as it appears here [[6]] in the pink drop-down menu at the top of the page. Your edit summary seemed to suggest that you might not have seen it. My thought was that you would be more likely to be adding events under these guidelines than deleting them, but I may have misunderstood them, and you. If I am in error, please excuse my presumption in commenting here. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - didn't see that; I thought the new criterion was that a "massacre" must have a Wiki-article which includes "massacre" in the title. That was the compromise I supported, very reluctantly. And I'm not sure any of the sources quoted count as "reliable" under the conditions listed. As for adding; I have no intention of expanding an article I think is bizarre other than for the specific purpose of balancing POV - to achieve NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not having any way to asess the sources, my comment wasn't about whether the deletion was right or wrong; it was only the edit summary that drew my attention. I voted to delete the article, myself. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, thank you for saving me a lot of time by proving that wikipedia can't work. There are just too many people like yourself with very little knowledge but plenty of time on their hands. However, just for your future benefit; when writing about history you might like to consider that there are in fact objective facts and not just competing povs. For example to answer your question and about massacres, the events of 1641 - the killings of civilians and prisoners were massacres. Now since you don't know anything about this period, I'll give you some more recent examples.

In the war of independence period, the executions of 1916 were massacres because they occurred within a judicial context. This does not make them any more moral. It's an analytical definition, which you just don't seem to appreciate. On the other hand, the events in Croke Park on Bloody Sunday 1920 can be called a 'massacre' because they were a deliberate targetting of unarmed civilians. Likewise the Dunmanway massacre, or MacMahon murders (Belfast 1922, look it up) of 1922, likewise the ballyseedy massacre of 1923.

I know you're not actually interested in any of this because you prefer to waste eveyone's time putting spelling mistakes and ill-informed rants, but hey that's wikipedia.

Ciao. Jdorney (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you chose to leave because you cannot freely insert pov into historical articles that is your choice. Your rather limited appreciation of the nature of spurious "legality" limits your ability to adequately interpret the voluminous facts you have absorbed. But "massacre" is a loaded word, like terrorism, pure and simple. If you cannot appreciate that then it isn't surprising that you cannot understand the nature of the "facts" you study. Perhaps you are simply out of your depth here? Sarah777 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah777 you wrote on my talk page:

Sorry Philip, the fact that you have put something on a different article page does not justify reinstating POV again. I am going to ignore your protection as the work of a biased Admin currently involved in edit-warring on the article. Do not be tempted to abuse your blocking tools. Sarah777 (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block only applies to IP addresses and new users. It does not apply to you. As to POV. I restored a version to one before edit warring started. Why not discuss you changes before making them and reach a consensus first as you initial bold changes were reverted by another editor? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed very clear examples of non-neutral language as per Wiki guidelines. I'm not sure there is anything to discuss. Sarah777 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah, I'm not sure if we've interacted much before, so I hope you'll accept my comments as those of an "uninvolved" admin. I've taken a quick look through your contribs, and overall I'm really impressed with all the work that you do. It does seem that you're definitely "in the fray" on some of the messier disputes, especially as involving Ireland-related matters, which I know are a real quagmire at the moment. So I'd like to give you as much allowance as possible, since you're definitely out there on the front lines. I do understand that when someone is dealing with POV-pushers, patience can run a bit thin.

My attention was mainly drawn to this, because I've been watching a couple other talkpages (not related to you) where I was asked to help out with a dispute. John was peripherally involved with that, which is how I noticed your comments.

I have no great desire to wade into the Ireland mess, though if you think that the attention of an uninvolved admin on any particular page might help de-escalate things, I'd be willing to take a look.

Regarding your own comments to John, I'll freely admit that I haven't dug into the whole history. So please, just take this as a comment from someone who's getting a "snapshot" of the current situation, and is offering a third-party view. And I have to say I'm a bit disappointed by the behavior from both of you. A comment like this,[7] though it may flow into an older pattern of communications with which I'm not aware, does kind of tend to make you look bad. And then edit-warring on his talkpage about it, seems a bit bizarre. Though I agree that his "trolling" comment in an edit summary was uncalled for. But then this message just seems like it's going to further escalate things.[8] Rather than continuing to spiral, do you think it would be possible to calm things down, just a hair? Or even better, maybe deleting any comments which you may have thought better of, now that the original moment of frustration has passed? I think it would help a lot in de-escalating things.

Thanks, and I hope you are able to take my comments as being made in good faith. It's obvious that you do a lot of great work on Wikipedia, and that you really care about the project. I look forward to getting to know you better.  :) --Elonka 02:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elonka - it appears I made a tiny wee mistake in the sense that John never actually said what I thought he did. I have recanted and removed the remarks from Rock's page. But re the comment from Oscar Wilde I never regarded John as an enemy! Annoying at times, but if I used that standard the whole world would qualify from time to time! Sarah777 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which part you find sad; with a name like "Bonkers" I'd guess you were closer to the Polish President than those..eh...fine young newlyweds! But that is merely a disagreement within the same culture - not between cultures. Sarah777 (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm writing this from Warsaw! I just wonder which one wears the trousers in the marriage. I guess the one on the right because the one on the left seems a bit weedy.

From my own observations (NB: not experience), Poland has just as many homosexuals as anywhere else; the only difference being that they don't shout about it and lecture everyone else on the joys of their particular enthusiasm.--Major Bonkers (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for "live and let live" - though I guess this is one issue I'm unlikely to get blocked for having strong feelings about! Hope you are enjoying your stay in Poland. Sarah777 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the photo, it is no wonder a social conservative used them to represent all that is wrong in the world. They represent the ultimate destruction of the traditional marriage roles: two men tie the knot and neither are wearing the trousers. Rockpocket 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! Hadn't noticed that...it isn't just your tongue is sharp then? :-) Sarah777 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on - that was my joke - which one wears the trousers - kilts - geddit? Sarah's running a bit slow not to get it! The kilt, incidentally, is supposed to be an Irish invention, appropriated by the Scots; the ancient Highlanders wearing their plaid rather like a toga, and unwrapping it to use as a blanket at night. Anyway, this story is big news over here; much ribald comment directed at the fact that the author of the remarks is himself 'a confirmed batchelor' (though not, of course, a kilt-lifter)! --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder, but your second comment about one being "a bit weedy" gave the impression you were playing it straight (if you'll excuse the pun). My tongue isn't sharp at all Sarah, I'm a big softy really. Rockpocket 17:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, chickens - have you all been behaving the past few days while I was away on a (very) brief sojourn in Trier? Any rows to get stuck into? Any pov to be reverted? I really must cadge one of those Wiki-buttons that says "I'm currently in rehab and they won't give me a keyboard". Now, to work. Sarah777 (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No keyboard is no big deal, but if they start taking all the sharp objects away and giving you edible crayons - I wonder what they taste like? are the red ones cherry flavoured and the green ones lime? - to write with, that's when you need to start worrying. I liked Trier, so I hope you did too. To get to the point, I am looking for an opinion, and you've usually got one to spare. Would you have time to look at Flann Sinna and let me know which bits are wrong, unreadable, confusing or otherwise no good? The pictures aren't so wonderful, but what can you expect with someone who has been dead for nearly 1100 years? Thanks and welcome back, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You really should ask someone who knows - I just link and collate the stuff I find here on Wiki in relation to our sturdy warlike cattle-raiding forbears. I suggest Angusmclellan who is one of a group of editors who appear to have actually studied the various Annals and Chronicles. Having said that the article looks pretty good - a B if the facts are more or less an accurate reflection of the sources; the photos are not that poor either, maybe a bit big. And Trier (been there a few times - family) is beautiful; full of Roman remains - pity I only had 48 hours there. And the old € goes a wee bit further than it does in Free Ireland! Sarah777 (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Angusmclellan? If you ask me he's a useless bluffer who just copies stuff out of books without necessarily understanding it. Can hardly read a word of Irish. If it were up to me, I'd sooner have somebody who knew what they were doing write the stuff. Anyway, he was the first person I asked, but as usual the answer didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

OK, fair enough, I'm winding you up. Is my signature really that confusing? The trouble with asking someone who knows, or more likely thinks they do, is that they'll fill in any gaps while they're reading. If you do get a chance to pick over it, let me know. I'm thinking of sending it off to WP:FAC once I've gone through all the things Mike Christie listed on the talk page and added the few bits and pieces I've found since I last worked on it. Toodle Pip! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golly Gosh! Small world - never spotted the similarity :) Rushing to catch up - I'll read it with a forensic eye - even more carefully than I read your signature. Sarah777 (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I helped fill-in some of those (Year) in Ireland articles, with the passings of Irish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks G'Day - as we all know the only good Monarch is a dead one. Sarah777 (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Ireland did the right thing, in becoming a Republic. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove those Kings & Queens of Ireland?? I'd think a country's monarchs death would be notable. You accepted my edits & now you reject them, Why? GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you meant Irish K & Qs. You were talking foreign. Sarah777 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I thought by hiding the titles of King/Queen of England & King/Queen of Scotland? You would've accepted their entries more eagerly. I was attempting to respect the 'Kingdom of Ireland' as an independant Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't independent, sadly. The title misses the aspect of occupation and dispossession which were intrinsic to the Royal roles. So I'm happy to go with the common title without the pipe. Sarah777 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And surely as G 1 was German we should let our readers know that - another editor reversed my edit citing some list of incomprehensible numbers and letters. Let it all hang out re the chinless wonders, I say . Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was the purpose of the 1801 Act of Union, if the Kingdom of Ireland wasn't seperate (1542-1800)? GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British aristocracy infighting, basically, is what it was. Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the Fianna Fail slogan from the 1930s? "Burn everything British except their trolls" Sarah777 (☎) 22:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the Kingdom of Ireland was seperate (1542-1800). But, that doesn't effect those entries, so? cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but what about the German King? Was the Dook of Brunswick-Lüneburg not German???? Sarah777 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite follow you. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you don't demonstrate the damned dog-eared ingratitude of Mr Counter-Revolutionary! Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained things a little, at CRs page. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sarah. A fair-use pic of the roadsign was already added by John to the South Armagh Sniper article. Thanks to him. Regards.DagosNavy 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I wonder if ONIH will be able to concoct some spurious reason to delete it? Sarah777 (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he can't claim any "misrepresentation" in this case:).DagosNavy 16:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	5	6	9			20
	A	1					1
	GA	5	3	9	3		20
	B	30	134	146	129		439
	Start	11	219	980	2150		3360
	Stub	1	23	657	7345	679	8705
	List		9	57	180		246
	Assessed	53	394	1858	9807	679	12791
	Total	53	394	1858	9807	679	12791

If that 'term' gets omitted from Wikipedia? I'll be stretched out flatter then paint on a plate, after fainting. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can always hope. Sarah777 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think that you can write gaelic. Can you please look at this edit and tell me if it is correct? [9] --Enric Naval (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lá na Máithreacha would be my guess, but I'm no expert. Sarah777 (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you very much. This should be enough for now --Enric Naval (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want I can tell you what is needed. I use it to assess more than just the Irish project pages. Have a great Easter. Just had a Skype call with both my sons, their wives and my one-year-old grandson. We talked about when I will get to the Glen of Imaal next - soon I hope. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Glen is a spot very close to my heart - and that article needs some photos! Good to hear that all is well - and that there is a third generation of Censors! Sarah777 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol !!. Maybe I can get some Glen shots when I get there next. If not perhaps a pint in Fenton's will have to do. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah, I see a slow revert war going on at Template:Irish states since 1171. You haven't formally broken WP:3RR at this point, but you are still in danger of being done for edit-warring. Please could you discuss it on the talk page instead? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme think about it - I assume the people reverting my corrections would also be done for edit-warring? Though I do note that one of my "opponents" has actually broken 3RR and nobody seems the least bit perturbed. The Irish v British thing again I guess. Sarah777 (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have thought about it for a millisecond and as I (mostly) heed your advice I'm recusing myself from the Great Template War. Sarah777 (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just rolled back one of your edits by the slip of my mouse sorry. I restored your work immediately. Just wanted to make you aware that no malice was intended. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Sarah777 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was at WP:UKNATIONALS. I don't know how I did it (I thought I was clicking elsewhere), but fixed it anyway. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one. I was going to add a para on "use of the term 'British Isles' is discouraged as it isn't accepted in Ireland and may lead to edit-warring" - it seems some people are deliberately creating articles with "British Isles" in the title as a provocation - but that would probably lead to an edit-war. However it needs to be discussed. Sarah777 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't possibly comment on that (!). I notice there is an open discussion at British Isles though, so I think it would be wise to hang back on that one. UKNATIONALS is for use on the UK too so I don't think anything about Ireland adds much in terms of its purpose.

On the "British Isles" debate, I'm actually torn on the issue myself. There's strong debate from each "camp" and trust a sensible way forwards will come out of discussion at some point down the line. Finger's crossed. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was reading Rockpocket's userpage and think you need to be more careful with what you are labeling incivility. A comment about a specific person "You are silly because you believe in unicorns" may be rude and not civil. However, saying "Believing in unicorns is silly." is a comment on a particular argument, not a comment directed at a specific editor. If you find general arguments insulting and they make you angry, then take a deep breath and walk away from the computer for a while. You need to criticise the assumptions and logic of the argument, rather than saying that the person making such an argument is not being civil.

Sometimes people do make such arguments in the knowledge that they will probably make the person they are arguing with angry, in a deliberate attempt to make you lose your cool. The only effective way of dealing with such people is to refuse to take their bait and reply to their comments calmly. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I've been accused of incivility by Wiki Admins (including Rock) often enough to know what I'm talking about. Reciprocity is a two-way street. In my opinion. Your prompt intervention is noted. Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it was the argument I said was uncivil I said "that is uncivil" not "you are uncivil". So what could the problem be? Sarah777 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless of course you reckon that (you believe in unicorns) + (that is a silly belief) = (you are silly). But that would make your initial comments silly. All so confusing. Sarah777 (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you've uploaded Image:IMG 0212w.JPG and I thought I should turn your attention to a common error.
Please give uploaded images meaningful names. Otherwise they are difficult to track and it is hard to tell what the image is about without actually looking at it. You may want to rename your image with an intuitive name that describes the image itself. Thanks, and happy editing! Stifle (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I name them, nearly always, but the occasional time I forget. I will redouble my efforts to give meaningful names to all uploads as I obviously appreciate the utility of the practice. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...just realised I don't know how to rename the image! Feel free to do so - it should be called "Ballaly Luas Stop". Sarah777 (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to re-upload it and assign it your wanted name at that time, then tag the original for deletion. BTW, if they are PD images why not upload to the commons? AFAIK there is no easy way to rename. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep Ww - for the past several months I'm uploading all new photos to Commons; but there are over 800 earlier ones and I'm waiting for a technical solution. Sarah777 (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:movetocommons}} will do it Sarah. Some more detailed advice here. Hope that helps. --John (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These days it'll be fish fingers, chicken nuggets and those bloody awful oven chips I think. And to think I might be moving back soon. Still, the pound is doing pretty bad. Since the last time I checked it means that house prices fell by 10% in real money. Now if only they'd go down in monopoly money values as well, I'd be a happy bunny indeed.

Just a teensy weensy suggestion: ignore Tharkun Coll. Not easy I know, but probably better if you do. I'm thinking he'll be joining VK and DL on the bench soon enough, and he surely deserves it more than either of them. The "google hits say" guy you might as well ignore too. I'm sure you've been through that argument endlessly before. And it's not like they're going to be able to do a sneaky move to Irish Potato Famine or whatever. I think quite a few people would notice that and put it back where it is.

How are you doing with collecting barnstars? If that's not going so great, how about trying featured pictures? User:Durova is apparently the woman to talk to if you fancy a go at that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Angus - I can resist anything except temptation as my maternal granny used to say (a lot!) - the blighters know they can rise me - though I certainly note that I am by no means their only target - just the easiest maybe. Barnstar collection is in the region of one-ish, but I feel I have a bit of momentum going. I was expecting a joint one from John and Rock for civility but it is a bit slow coming - like the number 44 bus on a wet morning. House prices are falling here too but only from totally mind-bogglingly ridiculous to grossly mind-bogglingly ridiculous; they'd need to halve in price to get to simply mind-bogglingly ridiculous (excuse all the technical economic jargon but I've been studying "liquidity puts" and "tertiary debt leverage"). Sarah777 (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#It.27s_empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring the pic, ever picture is worth a thousand words (or references). --Domer48 (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I was just looking at it from a layout/appearance perspective - maybe we could leave out the one top right; or create a gallery (though I don't much like those)? Sarah777 (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see we are being held up as exmples of a precived conspiricy? --Domer48 (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Indeed. What was his block for? I have a certain sympathy as my blocks (bar one) were for harrassment - of the blockers!! Don't think I've been anywhere near either of the articles mentioned in your link. Thank God. Sarah777 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your rap sheet they are citing. --Domer48 (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - every one a bum rap - in most cases by warring Admins. Note they are nearly all for incivilty; usually to tool-abusing edit-warring Admins.

• 01:07, 28 February 2008 Tyrenius (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Attempting to harass other users: Derogatory comments after extensive warnings)
• 16:36, 23 February 2008 Alison (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Gross incivility)
• 22:27, 25 January 2008 Ioeth (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Attempting to harass other users: Multiple violations of civility on User Talk:Alison and User talk:Ioeth)
• 22:18, 25 January 2008 SirFozzie (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (Multiple violations of civility on User Talk:Alison)
• 07:48, 22 December 2007 Rklawton (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Disruption: 3RR; POV pushing; tendentious editing))
• 03:32, 3 June 2007 Swatjester (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (harassment.)
• 03:42, 30 May 2007 BrendelSignature (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Edit warring)

BrendelSignature, Swatjester, Rklawton, SirFozzie, Ioeth, Tyrenius, Alison - the Legion of Shame. I may forgive but I'll never forget any one of them. Thay are all just a little bit special. Sarah777 (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that wonderful piece of humor on your last revert on article Brendan. lol --HJKeats (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a song! Can't get the tune outta my head - 'cos it's just a little bit special:) Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very un-PC of course. But I think most of our Admins here are just a little bit special too! Sarah777 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humor is never un-PC!!! Never heard the tune, it sounds like something a popular group from this little part of the world would have in their repertoire. Do you have that tune in mp3 format, I have an extensive collection of music (last count 15,000+), and I'm still collecting! --HJKeats (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear it on some young persons i-Pod around here - I'm told that it can be found on U-Tube. (Mr Lynch has some rather blasphemous stuff as well). This is a link &%^£!Sarah777 (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah; I nearly bust-a-gut listening to it :), a few people I knew went through my mind as I was listening to the lyrics... Thanks for sending me the link. From your user page I gather you are from Ireland, are you still living there? I'm from Newfoundland; we have a tremendous Irish heritage in this province. Thanks again, --HJKeats (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for my sins I'm still rooted in the old sod (or re-potted more like!) - Newfoundland and Quebec are two places I am determined to visit if the Lord spares me! Never been to Canada except once by accident :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, if you have the time I'd like your help. I've recently been accused of being a vandal by an admin called Waggers over my editting. I was in the process of reviewing every use of the term British Isles and making changes to those places where the term was used in a non-geographical way. I see that you've recently reverted one of Wagger's edits to one of the changes I made. Can you please look at my talk page to see the current status, reviewmny edits and Waggers reverts, and give me advice on how to proceed or what to do. If you don't have the time, don't worry. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do it just now but the revert I made (to Waggers revert of your edit) was because no reason was given for a seemingly irrational revert. I'll check out his other reverts later. Be careful btw; he's an Admin. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem. I'm keeping my head down. You're an admin though ... Thanks. Bardcom (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good God I'm not!!! Sarah777 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol - I'd love to see the Rfa though :-) Bardcom (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I could even rely on my own vote for me as Admin! Sarah777 (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno - deffo more good than harm I would say, and a lot of valuable contributions. But the admins you've p*ssed off - my oh my, that's a powerful list. BTW, Waggers reverted your edit on the Act of Settlement, but I finally found references and the article is now corrected. Bardcom (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regrets, they've been a few. But then again too few to mention. Sarah777 (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give me some examples of where you think that the civility rule has been misapplied? --Elonka 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check my blocks above. But like all arbitrary abuse the incivility that is not punished is as important as that which is. I would suggest that nobody should ever be blocked for "retaliatory" incivility unless the other party is also blocked. Simply doesn't happen - and never happens if the other party is an Admin. Sarah777 (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah.  :) Since I'm not familiar with the surroundings, could you walk me through one? Pick one clear unambiguous example of a case where you feel that a block was issued for incivility that was either wrong, or was unfair since it punished one party in an argument, while ignoring equally uncivil comments by another party in the argument. A couple specific diffs would be great, thank you. --Elonka 23:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one is a case in point:

• 22:18, 25 January 2008 SirFozzie (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (Multiple violations of civility on User Talk:Alison)
• An editor called "Waggers" made a rather sneering remark on Alison's page after I'd reported him there - I responded - and zap! Fozzie blocked me. (All this from memory. I'll root out the diffs if you can't find them tomorrow - they would all be archived by now. (Again from memory, the next block followed directly as a consequence of this one). Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not dodging this - I'll give a blow-by-blow tomorrow - but I turn into a pumpkin at midnight! Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was it the thread with these comments of yours? SirFozzie told both you and Waggers to stop, and then blocked you?[10][11][12][13]

The other party, Waggers, said [14] on Alison's talkpage, though I haven't looked to see other comments on other pages yet. --Elonka 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too handy at archive rooting but this is a core sequence: I went to Ali's page after Waggers got me banned based on a bizarre Arbcom ruling that was an open invitation to trolls and partisans to to suppress Free speech. I took my case to Alison's page:

• Hi Ali; that smug dip***t "Waggers" (whataname eh?) has managed to get me "banned" for "anti-British remarks". This is utterly ridiculous. Please tell me how I go about asking for an end to the Arbcom ruling that facilitates twits like him? What is the procedure? Sarah777 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• My top 3 suggestions, for what they're worth:

1. Stop using playground behaviour such as petty name-calling and aggressive remarks

2. Stop using playground behaviour such as petty name-calling and aggressive remarks

3. Stop using playground behaviour such as petty name-calling and aggressive remarks

If you seriously have a problem with my attitude, come and talk to me about it on my talk page rather than "asking the other parent" and calling me names behind my back. Waggers (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sod off Waggers you smug git. Howzat? Sarah777 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• And you really do flatter yourself by calling yourself "the other parent". I dislike being patronised even more than I dislike threats. Btw, wouldn't you reckon that running to an Admin to get me "banned" was a bit 'running to Mommy-ish"? Sarah777 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Alright, Waggers, Sarah, back to your corners. Sarah, one comment like that and I will block you, understand? SirFozzie (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think SirFozzie meant "one more comment" ;) 74.133.9.95 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think Fozzie is confused; he made no threat to Waggers for his sneering remarks above. Admin solidarity or something? Are they all precious? Sarah777 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• • At this stage Fozzie blocks me in a clear abuse of Admin power 'cos of comments I made about his double standards

• Actually, I never got a chance to warn Waggers. However, I did warn you that one more comment like that would merit a block. (goes to put notice on Sarah's page) And I'm not sure who the IP is here, but um.. please don't stir things up. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• • (Note: Waggers was in fact neither blocked nor warned by Sir Foz as it transpired)
  • Response by innocent IP to Fozzies intemperate attack on said IP

• Umm wow you call that stirring things up? Does AGF mean nothing to you? Or does it only apply to named editors that you know? My apologies to Alison, for this is not the page to discuss this but that was a straight smack in the face. Baseless accusations of stirring things up, simply because I mentioned that I thought you meant "one more comment" rather than "one comment". Or was it my informing you that the rumbling grumbling disruption was still on going? Now that is laughable, or disgraceful or maybe both. 74.133.9.95 (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In the ensuing row the Admin cabal blocked me once more - Ioeth did a (typical Admin) knee-jerk refusal to unblock and then himself blocked me for (yes, incivility towards an Admin) - I'll need to do some more rooting. Sarah777 (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To be fair Waggers was instrumental in starting the ball rolling here but it is important to point out that he has never abused his Admin powers to my knowledge; so I've removed the reference to "abuse" in his case. Alison is a marginal call but as she is not communicating with me (unrelated matter) I don't feel the pangs of guilt gnawing at my innards for leaving her on the list. Sarah777 (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pulling that together. Had you had previous interactions with Fozzie? Because I'm not seeing his block as an abuse. Indeed, it's fairly typical. The pattern usually goes like this:

• User "John Doe" does something that violates policy
• Admin "Mary" cautions John that he needs to stop the behavior
• John Doe then unloads on Mary, questioning her judgment, and often also her parentage, intelligence, and sexual habits
• Mary then blocks John for policy violations
• John then insists that the block was inappropriate because Mary wasn't an "uninvolved admin"

ArbCom is pretty clear on these though, that just because an admin offers a warning and engages in a conversation with the policy-violating user, doesn't make them "involved" with that user. Instead, "involved" is typically defined as an admin using their tools to further their own position in a content dispute of some type. The key is whether or not the admin is neutral in the dispute, or whether they're gaining a personal advantage in what they're doing, as opposed to just being the janitor that's cleaning up a mess.

And, to be honest, your comments really were uncivil.  :/ Calling someone a dips**t is not any better than spelling the word out in its entirety. It may be a masked vulgarity, but it's still a vulgarity.

Do you have any other examples of where you feel that the civility policy was not implemented properly? --Elonka 21:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of the assessor

I think, Elonka, we need to get a better perspective on the case above before going anywhere else.

• I was blocked (by Fozzie) for (ironically) saying (about Fozzie) Admin solidarity or something? Are they all precious? (Let's focus on that; I will deal with my remarks to Waggers separately).
• I'm not seeing his block as an abuse. Indeed, it's fairly typical. you say.
• That is exactly the problem re the implementation of the "civility" code on Wiki. That is fairly typical. Exactly why I said that having 1,500 Admins with such tools should be suspended forthwith pending a clear definition of incivility and how the rule is to be applied. It cannot be left to the whim of 1,500 anonymous Admins.
• It is complete nonsense to suggest or claim that a remark Admin solidarity or something? Are they all precious? amounts to incivility meriting a block. Unless we are to regard Admins as some sort of Little Gods.
• A block is a much bigger deal than any insult or incivility (real or imagined) - it is a form of violence; an assault. And like all police violence there must be very good and clearly defined reason for it; Admins hitting the "block" button in response to remarks as mild as those above directed at them is totally OTT and unacceptable.
• If you can't clearly see that there is little point in extending this conversation. Seriously. Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sarah777/Archive_5#Banned_from_British_Isles_for_7_days Here you'll see a bit more. The facts of the matter was that Sarah was warned that another personal attack would lead to a block, told Waggers,"Sod off Waggers you smug git. Howzat?", and was caught in the middle of a block storm. I only blocked for three hours, another administrator, Ioeth, decided the personal attacks (if you see the section I linked to for examples) required a 24 hour block, and we got caught between things. He edited the block to 24 hours.

At that point, I've disengaged from Sarah's page up till now, because it's obvious to one and all that she holds a grudge against me for this action, so in the interests of keeping her focused on the encyclopedia, instead of her grudges. This was 2 months ago now, and she is still upset. There's nothing I can do about it now, but wish she would focus her energy on editing civilly and improving the encyclopedia. SirFozzie (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fozzie - I am not upset with you. Far from it. This isn't about you; as Elonka points out your actions were typical. This is a point of principle with me and I regret you trivialise it to merely a "grudge". I have deliberately isolated the precise, immediate reason for your block in order to focus Elonka on the core issue of rules and clarity. (Of course I believe your block was wrong but surely that doesn't = 'holding a grudge'? I respect you greatly, btw - that has not changed. Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another example?

Bullshit, and off topic. You were blocked because of your approach. If you want to the thorn in the side of arbcom, by all means to so, but if you want support you need to act appropriately. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Lemme see.....Bullshit, and off topic v. Admin solidarity or something? Are they all precious? As a civilian I'd call that a draw. So I reckon that's a block for John Vandenberg then, surely? Sarah777 (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well golly gosh - it appears not!! How very surprising. Sarah777 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read on, it was explained exactly why a block was not issued in that case. Rockpocket 22:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Rock - that "explanation" is about as convincing as the patter of yer average snake-oil salesperson. (Arb sanctions were not involved in the Fozzie block either, btw). Sarah777 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference was one of immediacy and "evidence of a persistent problem." Your two preceding comments were incivil and you continued after being warned to stop. By comparing them out of context, that is lost.

If as you note above, its a point of principle. Why don't you focus your attentions on the principle, that WP:CIV, and how we interpret and deal with it is flawed and faulty, rather than focus on the people who are charged with ensuring the community follows those policies. The reason it is typical is because that is the community consensus for civility standards. Ultimately, and Giano has run into the same problem, if you have a different opinion on civility in Wikipedia from the rest of the community, what you should do is convince the rest of the community that we should change it (by proposing new policy or amending existing policy). I don't think persistently naming and shaming specific admins is going to do much apart from convince everyone else you are holding a personal grudge. Rockpocket 23:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of incivility, that is utter nonsense Rock. My previous remarks also had a context (incivility against me which was ignored by the Admin) - and were not the reason for the block - the reason for the block by Fozzie was my remarks to Fozzie. And while it is "typical" it is by no means universal. The Admins (people) are a very big part of the problem. I have heard your views on the futility of expecting reasonable standards of beheaviour from Admins several times now Rock and I will continue to call abuse when I see it. I certainly realise that Admins often don't like being called to task by mere mortals - that is my very point! And there is no "community" on Wiki; there is a majority view that is imposed by vote and dictat by a certain majority. Societies cannot operate without laws that are the same for everyone; no civilized country would ever give their police the vast and near unaccountable discretion (arbitrary power) that Wiki gives its Admins. Sarah777 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line Rock - I should NEVER have been blocked (or come anywhere near being blocked) for saying Admin solidarity or something - Are they all precious? utterly regardless of context. If you can't see that then I guess you are part of the problem. Sarah777 (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you should have been blocked for that (assuming that you were blocked for that alone, I suspect Fozzie would offer a different opinion) is somewhat beside the point. Whether I can see that is also beside the point (and just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a problem). It happened. What is to be gained by referring to it at least once a day? You can't change it, so what is being achieved? There are things that you perhaps can change and here is how you do them:

• Open a RfC on Fozzie and explain why you think he abused his tools. Then you may sample what others think and, perhaps will see that your opinion on the exchange is (or is not) shared by other users.
• Open a RfC on any of the other admins you name.
• Draft policy restricting, or even guiding, admins in interpreting civility in an attempt to standarise enforcement. Admins are only human, in the absence of policy dictating exactly how to keep the project a civil and pleasant place to edit, they use their judgment. You can't blame a volunteer who are selected to use their judgment for doing just that.
• Become an admin yourself or run for ArbCom, then you would be in a position to directly influence these "injustices" (and appreciate the impossible position we are put in by other editors. As an admin, you can't please all the people all of the time, there is almost always someone who feels wronged in a dispute. One of those people moaning that you abused your tools means very little, since if you did the opposite the other person would be moaning.)

To be blunt: bitching about how bad things are will not change them. Even if Wikipedia is akin to a police state, making the point in barbed asides as often as you can will not stop it from being so. So the question is, are you willing to put your money where you mouth is and do something constructive about it? Rockpocket 00:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. No interest in becoming an Admin - because I love writing/editing etc and wouldn't have the time. No point in opening a process to figure how the majority think - you forget I'm rather experienced in all that - same reason I couldn't be bothered going through any of the processes you mention - I've seen how they work too. So, all there is left is to express my opinion in the hope that like minded folk are listening. And by God will I bitch if I am treated unfairly (by my own reckoning)! (And there is no point in getting thick with me Rock - I know and like you too well to get roused:)Sarah777 (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community dispute resolution processes are there for a reason, and being unwilling to use them, because you think your perspective will not be supported by wider opinion, is all but admitting that you have no respect for our community norms. Rightly or wrongly, majority (or, more typically, super majority) opinion does determine policies and processes. Sucks for you if your opinion does not concur with the majority, but such is life. You don't have to respect our policies and processes, but you do have to abide by them. But you can't just say label everyone else as the problem and continue to forge you own path here. It simply doesn't work that way.

I'm not saying this to rile you or even argue with you. I'm not saying you are wrong, either. There is no absolute right or wrong, just opinions. Its just that I have been around here long enough, and made my way far enough up the greasy pole, to appreciate how things work. I'm telling you this because I know you cannot tame the beast with your current strategy and it will eventually eat you if you continue to poke at it. To some extent you have been fortuitous, because the beasts you are poking currently are actually quite gentle (albeit somewhat hammy fisted, I'm told), but at some point you are going to run into a more feral specimen...

I really hope you'll rethink and either let the past go and start afresh, to try to work within the framework to address whatever issues you have. We may have to agree to disagree (whats new there?) and I'll still offer my assistance where I can. But at least I feel I have done my best to pre-warn you. Rockpocket 02:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think I ain't got the measure of the beast. I've seen it work - up close and from a distance. I've seen what it can do to an editor that got 400 votes from serious, productive, talented editors. It is NOT a 'community' worth any respect - it is a base majority in a cultural ghetto. And this I know; just as in the case of Imperialism it cannot thrive without it's willing fools, It tries, not least with these civility 'rules' - to create an atmosphere of fear - and it hates those it cannot control. I'm lucky? Nah - don't think so. The beast has been very lucky with it's victims I'd reckon. Sarah777 (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I will repeat: I should NEVER have been blocked (or come anywhere near being blocked) for saying "Admin solidarity or something - Are they all precious?" utterly regardless of context. There is no need to look any further than that. Sarah777 (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should consider the position Giano find himself in, because I see parallels with his campaign against ArbCom. I don't think its going to work out all the great for him, to be honest. Which is sad, but ultimately his own doing. I'll leave it at that. Be nice and, hopefully, I'll find you still putting the world to rights when I get back in May. Rockpocket 03:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good health and happiness whatever you are going Rock. (btw - I don't have a 'campaign against Arbcom'!)Sarah777 (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm a bit sorry that I even brought this up, but let's see it through. I spent a couple hours really digging through histories and contribs. I'm taking a look at this as uninvolved admin, since I didn't even know about the dispute at the time. But, here's how I see things, from your batch of contribs on January 25, 2008:[15]

Context:

• 02:06, you said the "British Isles ceased to exist" when Ireland won independence.[16]

• 02:22, you issued a really blatant attack on another editor at the British Isles talkpage.[17]

• 08:37 Waggers refers to your commentary as "harping" and tells you to "grow up".[18]

• 09:00, Waggers informed you that he had filed a complaint (at 08:57) at WP:AE.[19] (archived AE thread)

• 10:26, Waggers says that "British Isles" is a "stupid name".[20]

• 13:44 Ioeth informs you (Sarah777) that you are topic-banned for a week.[21]

• 19:39 Sarah777 edit summary: "uncle tom speak"[22]

• 20:11 Waggers: "Stop using playground behavior".[23]

• 21:07 Sarah777: "sod off" [24]

• 21:09 SirFozzie tells both of you "back to your corners" and tells you (Sarah) "one more comment" and you will be blocked.[25]

• 21:14 Sarah777: "running to Mommy-ish" comment [26]

• 21:16 Sarah777: "Fozzie is confused"[27]

• 21:18, SirFozzie blocked you for three hours

• 21:18 Ioeth said he was blocking you for 24 hours, though he evidently ran into a block conflict with SirFozzie, and SirFozzie's was the one that took effect.[28]

Your comments then further escalated:

• 21:21 "abuse of admin powers"[29]

• 21:22 You file an unblock request, citing "gross abuse" of admin powers.[30]
• 21:25, Yamla declines your unblock

• 21:27, Ioeth, seeing that there had been a block conflict, finishes extending the 3-hour block, to a 24-hour block

• 21:27 You commented about a "whining rationale"

• 21:28 Yamla protects your talkpage for 24 hours

• 21:35 Waggers says he's not going to respond, and refers to your comments as "trolling"[31]

• The next day, January 26, 23:26. You are still unrepentant.[32] and continue to complain about the block."total garbage""admin bullying""power-crazed"

I'm really scratching my head here. Is it your honest opinion that you did nothing wrong, that you were completely civil, and that admins were just harassing you for no reason? --Elonka 07:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any sane people do anything for "no reason". But then I didn't say that. And what is more, read my comments to Rock - "Fozzie is confused"[33], that is what led to the initial block and it was NOT even REMOTELY justified. All the other remarks were a consequence of that block or were earlier responses to Waggers completely unchecked incivility towards me (which you don't highlight I notice). My comments to the post-block Admins were fully justified and I'd not hesitate for an instant to repeat them if I become victim of a similar utterly arbitrary, abusing and unjustified block. Look, I know Admins don't like hearing the reality of widespread abuse of Admin power being discussed (as we can see from above) - but the "Fozzie is confused" post, regardless of any context (and I think you have provided very selective bits for your context - my own record above is much better), was NOT incivility remotely justifying a block. Not even close. Period. Case closed. Sarah777 (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide some diffs of Waggers' unchecked incivility? I'll take another look. --Elonka 19:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added every diff of Waggers' on January 25 that could even remotely be considered out of line. Do you know of any others that I missed? --Elonka 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, unless you concede that Fozzies block was utterly wrong there is little point in continuing this exchange, as I said. Sarah777 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that both SirFozzie and Ioeth were trying to block you at the exact same moment? So are you saying that you feel that SirFozzie's block was improper, but Ioeth's was reasonable? Or do you disagree with the reasoning of both of them? --Elonka 02:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Disagree" is milder than I'd use but, yes, they were all "typical" (and wrong) - which brings me back to square one and the need for more explicit rules and much less personal discretion. Note that both yourself and Rock also agree with your fellow Admins here; Rock interprets that as a sign of "rightness" and "community standards" - I have a rather different explanation for the "hive mind" (not meaning to be uncivil). Sarah777 (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I blowing my chance of another Barnstar here, btw? Sarah777 (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does seem that there is a mismatch in perception here. My summary is as follows:

On this one particular incident, your account was blocked by Administrator SirFozzie, at the same moment as Administrator Ioeth was attempting to issue a block. You requested an unblock review, and Administrator Yamla reviewed the situation, and declined your request. Administrator Rockpocket has also weighed in, saying that the block was appropriate. And now, I, an administrator a couple months after the fact, and about as uninvolved as you can get (and also starting with a very positive impression of you) have also reviewed the block. My opinion is, quite simply, that your comments on that date were in clear violation of Wikipedia policies. An administrator told you to stop. You didn't. He blocked you. Appropriately. You then continued with the uncivil comments, to the point that your own user talkpage had to be protected to keep you from continuing to use it as a platform for attacks. And even now, despite five completely different administrators reviewing the block and saying that it was appropriate, you still continue to argue it.

I've gotta be honest, Sarah, after I've dug into your history, not only do I think that the block was appropriate, but I'm kind of stunned that you haven't been blocked more often. I think that enormous leniency has been shown to you, in large part because when you are civil, you are amazingly productive. You've done some really excellent work on Wikipedia. However, just because you do good things for Wikipedia, does not mean that you can simultaneously antagonize other editors. I find it extremely concerning that you do not see some of your past behavior as uncivil. Unless you can learn to understand and voluntarily adapt your behavior to the norms that the community expects, Wikipedia may not be the right place for you. In short, whether or not you agree with it, WP:CIVIL is policy, and you have to abide by it. If you don't understand it, I and others will gladly discuss things with you to make it clear. But if you refuse to abide by it, for lack of understanding or any other reason, I am afraid that there will be more blocks in your future. You can cry "admin abuse" all you want, but your voice doesn't have weight unless other people agree with you. Wikipedia works on consensus, and the current consensus is, "Civility is required." As Rockpocket mentioned above, you are welcome to try and build a consensus to change that policy. But while civility is policy, you still need to follow it. Do you think that you will be able to do so? --Elonka 04:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only time will tell I guess. The Fozzie block was totally wrong - that remark came nowhere near meriting a block - I refuse to get defocused on that. All I can do is to keep repeating that there is a major problem with the lack of clarity re civility which allows its use as a means of personal power (and maybe corporate abuse) by Admins. Line up 50 more Admins to repeat what you and Rock have said (and all it is is repetition) - that won't change the facts. And also I don't believe that Wiki is in any real sense a global "community" - only a very limited strain of Anglo-American community. And unless I'm banned I'll decide whether Wiki is "the place for me" or not. Sarah777 (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you feel that way. Though for what it's worth, I think that you are lucky that the Wikipedia standards are currently formatted the way that they are. I'm an admin here on Wikipedia, but I am also an admin in many other large online communities as well. In most where I participate, someone who was doing what you've been doing (being rude to other editors, and then refusing to admit that you were rude, or that your access should be blocked), would be given 2 or 3 "free pass" warnings and blocks, and then you would simply be blocked, permanently, until you agreed to abide by policy. If you couldn't do that, you wouldn't be let back in, simple as that. But here on Wikipedia, there is this optimistic "hope for reform" system. Disruptive editors are blocked for steadily increasing amounts of time, and we keep letting them back into the project, even though the person causing the problem, may never be willing to admit that there's a problem, and even worse, sometimes the person indicates that they're going to keep on causing problems! But for some reason on Wikipedia we still let the block expire, and the person comes right back in. I disagree strongly with this approach, but, when I became an admin, I also agreed that I would support Wikipedia policies as they existed, not as I thought they should be. I understand that others have suggested the "Keep 'em blocked 'til they say they'll behave" approach, but it has not been able to achieve consensus. Maybe someday that'll change, I don't know. In the meantime, we keep on with the revolving door. Enjoy it while you've got it.  :) --Elonka 07:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't, then people looking for a picture of The Mountain or wherever won't be able to find it. I've just categorized the ones that needed it. Soe were really good so have the

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For some beautiful and useful pictures of Ireland Simon Speed (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

. I believe you can move your barnstars to your user page if you want. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Simon. But they'd crowd out my userpage - I have nearly two of them at thus stage!! Still waiting for the Enniskerry omnibus and I'm trying to save space for it 'cos it's gotta be MONSTER!! Sarah777 (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW; I'll look at categorising the pics on Commons - I presume it is easy to do?! Sarah777 (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same nonsense as here: most of the bother is finding the categories, but commons has a better search engine for some reason. Yes, I do have plans for Mór, but I have plans for lots of things. Getting things don tends to be more of a problem. Two barnstars! So, next up, featured picture? Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'd settle for three! Sarah777 (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah, I reverted your edit to Dublin#Population, because while the closest chunk of the border is less than 100km from Dublin, the population figures are plausible only when viewed against the total population of the Republic, not against the whole population of the island. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are probably right. I was not really sure - I was applying the precautionary principle whereas I really should have just checked the figures. Feelin' lazy today.....Sarah777 (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's scary, it is, the population all crowding itself round Dublin like that. If it continues, the island will capsize to starboard, and Bertietown will be blowing up bubbles in the radioactive Irish Sea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on! On the other side of the Sea of Manx there are 10 million within 100k of Liverpool Town Hall and it ain't sinking.......is it???? Sarah777 (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's cos they have a sparsely-populated Wales as an outrigger to stop the place tipping over. Mind you, that might not be enough when the refugees from start pouring in from Doubling. Many of them have already been buying their liferafts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I see the date on that is 27 April 2006 - anyone who put their dosh in British Property back then will certainly need a liferaft - if they can afford one after converting their losses back into real money - the €! Sarah777 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do to deserve your growl today? --sony-youth^pléigh 20:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really - just the thought of you wielding Admin powers fills me with dark foreboding ;) Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'd be suprised, Sony'd make a great admin. Sarah, I know he'd get your no 1. Watch out, your enemy can become your greatest friend, watch out! -78.19.179.195 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps! Sarah777 (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know I've been doing some thinking (thus the reason for my headache), perhaps you & Giano II, should try for Administrators. Think of it this way - if you can't beat'm? join'm. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Giano tried to skip the training pool and dive straight into the deep-end at Arbcom! Got a heck of a vote too - even disallowing some of our favourite socks. Sarah777 (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Áed Sláine died 602 per McCarthy's synchronisms of the Irish annals.Timelinefrog (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that; but in the article Áed Sláine it says 604 and I think it was written by your good self! Sarah777 (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - actually it was Angus; and somewhere else in a Wiki article (can't recall where) it is emphatic that 600 was the year he snuffed it! Sarah777 (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus relies on the Annals of Ulster for his chronology whereas the Annals of Tigernach chronology is more accurate. when in doubt I'd rely on Tigernach over Ulster.Timelinefrog (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reference from Tigernach under 602.2 "Iugulacio Aeda Slane o Conoll mac Suibne for bru Locha Semdighe" or if you prefer english "The slaying of Aed Sláine by Conall son of Suibne on the brink of Loch Semdid."Timelinefrog (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change the date in Áed Sláine to 602 then? Any other errors like that that you may have spotted? Sarah777 (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell from your edits you are a typical Irish citizen - very bitter about the past. I think that's why Ireland will always be seen as the cesspit of Western Europe - completely devoid of culture or even interesting history. Any achievement an Irishman has ever made has been done in England or with English help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whatever! irish christianized the english.guess the job wasn't completed.Timelinefrog (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ignoring the above anglo-saxon bigotry, back to chronology. I will be sneaking a standard chronology into as many articles as I can. Hard to do with some of Angus' articles cause they are usually well written to begin with. I'll probably update Áed Sláine soon.Timelinefrog (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He he! Probably an Admin working undercover! I guess as part of the years-in-Ireland series I'd be glad of a "most probable" date or a range if that isn't possible - don't really want to have these chaps dying two or three times! Sarah777 (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]