This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sarah777. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Sarah, I assure you that my intent was not to revert edits with which I have an ideological problem. My revert was done specifically because the previous edit had damaged references and left incomplete text in the article. I said so in my edit summary. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive'23:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of Emo and pasted it into Emo (music). This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. --Muchness (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Witches brew; Public Wiki Announcment
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Here Ye, Here Ye! For one week beginning this Very Moment I will refrain from editing any Ireland v Brit Occupiers articles; including but not Exclusively 1641; The Troubles & soforth. Ditto the execrable "List of so-called Maffacres" & soforth. And be Advised that in the Realm of Ye Years in Irelande not a single category shall I create nor even alter howsoever deserveth. The reason for these measures are that the Roads of Irelande; Villages thereof and even the Hills and Streams are currently Bereft of my Attention. Sarah777 (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, if you have the time and inclination, I wrote an article on my favourite author on the NI war. It's at Tony Geraghty, if you have the time and inclination to have a look. I've also proposed some criteria at the massacres talk page; what do you think of them? --John (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed Bastun I can fairly say I'm some hours into my second day. Be amazed. John, I will look at both - have some catching up to do first. Sarah777 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
My RFA
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
From what I can see, the discussion petered out when you wanted a better image than Image:NIShape.gif (see right), but I couldn't find one.
I think we both moved on to other issues, but it still seems like a good idea. So I suggest that I create the template with NIShape.gif, which can be replaced with a better image if anyone finds or makes one. Is that OK with you?
Also, I think that we need to decide a colour for the border of the box. I think that neither orange nor green would be appropriate (both would be seen as partisan), and I can't think of a suitable alterantive ... so I suggest the we use the dark blue #000062 as used on the website of the Northern Ireland Executive. I assume that the dark blue colour scheme must have been agreed by the parties in the executive as an acceptable alternative to the colours associated with the various political strands in NI, and that it's therefore as close as we can get to a neutral solution.
Yes on both counts; we need a similar template for NI if only to reward the tireless Ardfern! The Blue looks striking; far better than the pale green - but I guess we should ask the Northern members; Bastun is rarely stuck for a comment. I especially like the light blue Lough Neagh and county borders...it gives a navy/blue effect which reminds me of my adopted county; (Hint:Molly Malone). On the other hand you just might start another raging war with this one! Sarah777 (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Eeek! If Jack had not been vacuously posturing when he said "we will not stand idly by", your map might might be useable. But since nowt happened, I think it might just be as wee but provocative to anyone who doesn't recall the border being withdrawn :)
My commiserations on your choice adopted county. From that part of the world, the signs to civilisation are spelt "N4" and "N7" :) (I'm a refugee from Dublin, so I'm allowed to slag it a bit)
If it's heaven, you're after, go west, and get a proper Atlantic sunset. Poor old Carlow don't have no sea at all!
Though I have to confess I have fond memories of County Carlow, after a rather wonderful holiday there. We found a quiet corner on the road from nowhere to nowhere, and judging by way all the faces looked so very similar and so very Norman, no-one else had been in or out of the area for about 700 years. We had a wonderful unwind-together time, and it was a great place it for that. :) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Great job BHG - have looked at 1969 - exceptionally cool. Love it - only hope our other NI punters love it too. Thanks to you and Sarah for all the kind words. No need for barnstars (although very nice to get them) - rather just get on with the work. Ardfern (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Article table; Hmmmmmm
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have serious reservations with your post here. All that is going to happen when you issue ridiculous allegations like this is that you will look ridiculous and your views will not be taken into account in deciding on the article's content, something I thought you were interested in. Remember the civility parole I issued at the start of this process, and please, always comment on content and not what you imagine the contributor's motives to be. --John (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
On reflection I want to go further, be more honest, and tell you that when I read "All I can see from John and ONIH are attempts to 'head off at the pass' any danger that their fav British/American acts of heroism in WW2 might be called massacres" I felt physically sick.
How dare you make such assumptions about my POV. Such assumptions poison the atmosphere of a discussion and make it difficult if not impossible to assume good faith of the person making them. So; on the level of your assumptions about me and my views you have once again got it completely wrong, like when you complained to Alison about me, labelling me as an "English" editor.
On the level of the article and the hard-fought compromise we have been (fairly civilly so far) working on; if you still want to have an input on the criteria for inclusion, I suggest you propose a workable solution (that is one which all parties can agree to) very soon. Failing that, I'm afraid we will move on without you. This is what happens to marginal views; they tend to get marginalised. --John (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I stand by my observations; that is my reading of the conversation as it developed when I was gone. I have proposed several workable solutions which have been ignored. And, as I have pointed out over and over - it is your view that is marginal. Sarah777 (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Sarah. Thanks for taking interest in the Great Book of Lecan article I created some time ago. I noticed you changed the date from a year to a range. Given he antiquity of the subject matter, I don't doubt that we can't pin down when it was written. Although you may have made the article more accurate, your addition is unsourced. Can you please source your addendum? Thanks and best wishes. --House of Scandal (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi House, I was a bitbold and used material from another Wiki article - Uí Fiachrach. It gave the range 1397 - 1418 and that seemed more likely than the single date; it also had information about the commissioning. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, I am leaving a friendly notice to invite you to participate at a requested move from 'Football in the Republic of Ireland' to 'Association football in the Republic of Ireland', due to your participation in a previous requested move. Hope to see you there! EJF (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey! That was friendly. Normally messages claiming to be friendly contain miscellaneous threats, often of the Administrative kind. What a nice change! Sarah777 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I happened to notice your Pól Ó Foighil article in the DYK "waiting room" a last night and left a complementary note beneath it. I see no reason why it shouldn't make front page. I haven't checked out your "Lazarus" Coogan article but will. Go n'éirí an t-ádh leat. -- House of Scandal (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
46A
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
No. I think you need to be an Admin to fix that up. I see Conor is starting a series on Dublin Bus routes - I wish him luck when the deletionists get their rotten claws into that! Sarah777 (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A Canuck Greeting
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Sarah, that's more than enough. I've blocked you for 24 hours for this comment which was completely out of order. Nobody should have to put up with that sort of abuse - Alison❤15:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Unblock me at once Ali. It was not out of order. The remarks deleted by Tyranious were NOT out of order but were an EXACT response to the type of remarks Fozzie (on your page which you ignored) and John whenb he attacked me recently made. But Admins support Admins don't they? When some of you guys stop abusing your power and stop being uncivil yourselves you can expect something better than richly deserved contempt. This is a TOTALLY biased, unfair and illigitimate block and I demand it be lifted NOW; expunged from the record and an apology made by you. The block review process is a sick joke as I have found when subject to what were later admitted to be abuse of Admin power - some Admin glances at the comments he is directed to and confirms it. So Ali, I am asking you - and nobody else - to remove this block. Pronto. Given what you have just done, btw, you merit no politness (to put it at its mildest) while this block stands. Sarah777 (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No doubt heartened by having got Vk etc you are hoping to provoke me into some (absolutely understandable) reaction that will allow the PURGE to continue. (And didn't I get that right??!). If you do as you did the last time and block this page I will change IP and openly sign my comments - but I will not be silenced by a bunch of self-important control-freaks who reckon being 'uncivil' to one of their tribe own is the greatest offence on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, I'm not undoing your block any time soon. On the contrary. Not only was I, once again, foolishly pleading your case, you had to go and prove me wrong by doing what you did. And once again, when you get called on it, you begin blustering (see above) and claiming Admin Abuse™. Well, nobody gets to behave like that to anybody else and you're constantly at it. The block stays and I will not be lifting it. Feel free to request unblock from another, random admin however - Alison❤17:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I will not, for the reasons I have clearly stated. And blustering I most certainly am NOT. That was a pretty limp 'defense' btw. You are rather more focused in your attacks. Sarah777 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply to the Central Committee Members
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments1 person in discussion
I think this is the most informed forum to address the completely unacceptable harassment in these posts. [15][16] It is time to stop tolerating such behaviour from anyone. This user has been adequately warned and continues to be a disruptive presence:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. -- Tyrenius (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly - this had NOTHING to do with "The Troubles" and shouldn't be here. If you had banned the various abusive uncivil Admins I've encountered you might have some case - but you (plural) never do. And you and people like you Tyrenius can rant about what you will tolerate etc all you want, but what you are doing is simple bullying. The remarks you removed were fully appropriate to the way John was beheaving; constantly repeating that there was "consensus" where manifestly there was none. He completely abused his position in relation to "massacres"; refused to engage or defend his decision but merely repeated parrot-like in a condescending arrogant tone that there "was consensus"; as if repitition made it so. Then he interprets my equally constant contradictions of his LIE as "harrassment". How neat. And of course his fellow Admins (some of them) agree that "nobody (meaning:no Admin) should have to put up with that". Oh dear! How thoughtful are we Admins towards our own feelings - such touching empathy. Interestingly; all bar one of these abusive blocks have been for incivility to AN ADMIN. And the single block not for hurting some insulting Admin's feelings was an accidental 3RR. Sarah777 (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Tyrenius, but I cannot see any harassment in those two diffs. Incivility, perhaps, but please can you explain why you see those two comments as harrassment? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an ongoing thing because the consensus went against her at Talk:List of massacres. Thanks Tyrenius for removing the derogatory comments; let me be clear that I do regard this kind of thing as harassment and would like to see something done about it. Sarah needs to learn how to disagree without it becoming a vendetta each time. --John (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS; THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS; THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS - you arrogant blimp. You keep repeating that YOUR decision is consensus; and when I keep replying that it isn't - poor little John whines "harrassment". EVERY time you lie and state that there was "consensus" I will point out that there ISN'T. Period. Sarah777 (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I personally don't see them as "harassment". Unfortunately, it's a rather overused and much blunted term on WP. Incivility, yes. Rudeness, probably. Harassment, no - Alison ❤ 04:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. To me it is a textbook example of "_targeted personal attacks: Not all personal attacks are harassment, but when an editor engages in repeated personal attacks on a particular editor or group of editors, that's another matter." I can dig out diffs for you if you like but this editor has made a disproportionate amount of nippy comments about me recently. It does begin to feel like harassment. Of course YMMV. --John (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
So. John threatens to block me (alone) on the "Massacres" list; then declares a 'consensus' where none exists; then keeps repeating that lie over and over to which I keep replying (with some rather telling analogies in the last case) and my replies to his bull become "hassessment". I would suggest that it is about as far from a classic case of harressment as one can get. But it is a classic case of double-standards and Admin abuse. Sarah777 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm. It's obviously quite upsetting to you and it's been going on some time now. We all kinda know what Sarah is like re. admins, though, but that's no excuse. Ty beat me to it and removed the comments with a warning. Trouble is, if you try something like civility parole, a certain someone will likely call it "censorship". What to do ... - Alison ❤ 05:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This one really takes the biscuit! "quite upsetting". And having an biased Admin come in and dictate POV in an article I have been trying to rid of POV for months isn't? And yes, I will have nothing to do with "civility parole" unless I can put at least half-a-dozen Admins on it; starting with John. Sarah777 (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly frustrating. I'm happy with Ty's actions there for now; I have a lot of respect for Sarah's passion but her sniping on the list of massacres article, which Rock asked me to look in on, is getting wearing, as I mentioned a few days ago. I hope she will focus on harmonious editing from now on; I don't come here to be spoken to that way. Thanks for commenting. --John (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Not half as "wearing" as your invention of 'consensus' and repeated proclamation of it which necessitates the "sniping" (aka - replying) Sarah777 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It is harassment per Wikipedia:HAR#_targeted_personal_attacks:
_targeted personal attacks: Not all personal attacks are harassment, but when an editor engages in repeated personal attacks on a particular editor or group of editors, that's another matter.
However, it doesn't matter what it is called, it is still unacceptable. It is a breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, which are policies. It is demoralising and humiliating for an editor to be subjected to this kind of abuse. We have come down hard on other breaches of policy re sockpuppeting, and the air seems rather clearer as a result. There is no reason to treat this case any differently. There is no reason to exercise restraint, because it's going to be called "censorship": that would be giving in to emotional blackmail. Many people who transgress throw counter-accusations to get themselves off the hook. It doesn't work like that. Abusive comments about other editors poison the atmosphere and do not address the issues. There is no excuse for them, especially with consistent offenders, which Sarah 777 is. I suggest a one week block in the first instance, with increasing lengths for further offences. That is better than doing nothing for a year and then imposing a community ban when it gets unbearable. Tyrenius (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thus speaks the bully; and such garbage he utters. Based on the rant above Tyranius should be relieved of his tools immediately as he is obviously totally unfit to be an Admin. "Many people who transgress throw counter-accusations to get themselves off the hook." Do they? I'm not on any hook; I am the subject of Admin abuse of power. Simple. Sarah777 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The comments on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 18 are worth looking at as well. One Night In Hackney303 14:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Remarks by Sarah777 from the above deletion review discussion:
Could this be related to the involvement of some editors in "an article I couldn't give a sh*t about" (List of massacres) by some Anglo editors, one wonders?[17]
[NB change from "English" to "Anglo"]
Wow! The quote was from something YOU posted ONIH. And the question was a rather relevent one. I suggest you involved yourself in opposition to me (part of John's "consensus of three") because of disagreements we had on earlier articles. I still think that, btw. And you have now again involved yourself in opposition to me on "years in Ireland"; another set of articles you were completely uninvolved in and have contributed zilch to - until you spotted a dispute.
I also (personal view) think there is an element of typical British anti-Irishness involved here; the nationality of most of those attacking the project is very clear.[18]
Tyrenius (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the nature of many of the comments made in the "years in Ireland" case that is a pretty reasonable suspicion to have. Sarah777 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The first part of the initial comment is dubious too - "typical deletionist nonsense. This is an attack on the work of the productive editors by the bureaucrats". One Night In Hackney303 15:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sarah777's response on my talk page: "Kindly sod off."[19] Tyrenius (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Rather less than you deserve ||||
... and blocked for 24 hours. That's more than enough - nobody needs to put up with that sort of abuse - Alison ❤ 15:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Shucks - you move me to tears of pity for the poor harrassed Admins; you really do. Try being blocked by an abusive Admin if words upset you so - nobody needs to put up with that sort of abuse either. I which is worse do you think? Sarah777 (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This is worth a look too - under a heading of "Another daft decision" she said "PSB, I see you moved "football" in Ireland to some weird name rather than to a disamb page as was the clear consensus on the matter. Have you ever made a sensible call as an Admin? Please reverse this asinine decision". One Night In Hackney303 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This page was last modified on 23 February 2008, at 16:44. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Another daft decision
Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
I'll look into your case Philip. If I find I was over-hasty I will as always, and utterly unlike abusive Admins, admit my mistake and apologise. Right now I have a photo to add to this page. Sarah777 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It should go somehwere because I thought, oddly enough, that the "Troubles" arbitration was to do with Troubles-related issues. It now appears it is a Kangaroo Court for any non-forelock tugging Irish Editor in relation to any topic or dispute. Sarah777 (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
See the Pharisees are at heel. Long live love and freedom of speech. Demise to censorship and repression. ;~)) 22:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.73.33 (talk)
I only wish they were at heel. More like freedom of speech is under their heels. I see PSB is queuing up his apology demands - really better look into that. But as for "you should give out apologies to those who feel harrassed by you"; I will when either (a) they stop harrassing and blocking me or (b) hell freezes over - whichever comes first. Sarah777 (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Meant to say, "nipping your heels". You don't realise the satisfaction that children get playing "policeman". It used to be "cowboys", but it's all changed this last few years. They would love someone to say the "f*** ***" words. But then I saw it used last week, and do you know? Nothing happened!! 78.19.73.33 (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, something would happen quick enough if I did - but then I'm not on the Central Committee. Thanx GoodDay; but I only apologise when I am wrong; never just to make peace. Sarah777 (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Dangerous accusations
Latest comment: 16 years ago27 comments4 people in discussion
Please note that it's Allie, not Ali. Both Sarah and Foz get that wrong all the time. Also, it's admin, not Admins :) - Alison❤01:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As one who often drank with Brendan Behan's brother, Dominic Behan, the Vintagekits dispute has nothing to do with Britain or Ireland, or the Troubles for that matter. Unfortunately some of the Admins have made that connection. I don't know what Vintagekits politics are, and I don't give two "knackers". Strange how all this is being shoveled up again, when it was supposed to be in the past. Vintage is blocked for voting with a sock. I think the troubles are over in Northern Ireland, Wikipedia take note! 78.19.73.33 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Nope, not me - though I guess by saying earlier in a call for registration that someone could easily be framed I may have given someone ideas! If your check-user thingy concluded that 'twas I 'tis time to bin it. Remember Derova? But if you are just having a guess isn't that a bit dangerous? I said if I changed IP to get around restrictions I'd sign my name. My page wasn't blocked and I haven't changed my location; still plugged to the same socket with an uncloaked IP. What if instead of making a few helpful comments my new friend 78.19.73.33 made a few threats or changed a few "troubles" articles? Not funny. But I don't blame 78197333, I blame The Committee. Sarah777 (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom?! Nothing. I refer to the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party Wiki Establishment Party who are conducting this PURGE. Sarah777 (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
lol - I so don't look anything like that. Besides, I got the Joe Mc Carthy ref in first! BTW - Sarah, I've a question I've been meaning to ask. Dunno if now is appropriate, though, given the circumstances :o - Alison❤02:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Beagán. I can speak it pretty OK as I went to a Gealscoil but couldn't write in it to save my life. Even in speech the old vocabulary is a bit reduced but it comes back wiith exposure; like riding a bike. Céin fáth a bhfuil tú ag askall an ceist sin? Agus mise so bprisoon? Sarah777 (talk) 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the reason I ask (and had been meaning to) is because when enwiki gets too much for me, I usually head over here or here, where things are much more serene and I can contribute without any drama or politics. Just thought you might be interested, too, is all. You don't have to have perfect Gaeilge or anything. Our towns and counties need a lot of attention, esp. in the photos department. Just a suggestion, mind :) - Alison❤03:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
OK Philip; in your case and in your case only it appears I was utterly totally and abysmally wrong in both cases. I hereby retract and apologise for misreading your "Football" edit" and please point me to the spot where you'd like me to deposit an equally grovelling retraction and apology for accusing you of tinkering with the 1641 article. I promise to read your edits more carefully in future before commenting on them. Fuirthermore I must record that you sometimes do make good decisions contrary to what may have appeared to be implied in one of my remarks above. Needless to say I was being a bit caustic rather than literal. Sarah777 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Sarah777 as far as I am concerned these two issues are now closed, and I look forward to cooperating with you on editing articles in the future. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, and the other edits in the current AfD towards John - the phrase I think is "comment on content, not the contributor" - that is, the remarks are uncivil and you should be more careful about violating WP:NPA. Avruch T 03:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have a link missing Avruch. I think I have made my views on John's comments (endlessly repeated comments) pretty clear. As for John himself I know little about him other than what he chooses to reveal here. Sarah777 (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
To Rockpocket
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Fair points, which I will digest. But I must also point out to you that I can only go by what I read on your page. It's all very depressing, and maybe very shallow too!! It wasn't so much your comments, but comments by others, that you accepted as fact. That also was depressing. 78.19.73.33 (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Without making any comment on my new friend 78197333s views as expressed here I feel I must point out that contrary to some speculation I have no connection whatsoever with the esteemed IP. But this appears to rule Fozzie out, I would think. Sarah777 (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely not me. I'm taking the most parts of a wikibreak. (Too much arguing and snapping at other people, thanks to an ongoing ArbCom case) Well, I'm mostly sure it's not me.. there's been some moments where I can't quite remember what I've done.... Nah.. couldn't be :) SirFozzie (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't mean a lot; if my main PC hadn't just croaked last night I could have pulled an IP from anywhere out of the drawer; even the UK. And you hardened check-user types would know all about that now wouldn't ya Foz?! :-) Sarah777 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Vintagekits is gone, they finally drove him demented, and now this [5]. Do you notice a pattern. Same heads looming, they need a prey. Look at them! - Tyrenius, Rockpocket, John, SirFozzie, Alison, GoodDay, One Night In Hackney, BrownHairedGirl. Someone recently predicted this. Who will be after you. They don't give "two knackers" about your 20,000 good edits. Is Wikipedia worth this bs? 78.19.2.57 (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
And, maybe you know, Sarah, but I'm not "after you". I've been fighting your corner for some time. Had I not blocked your a/c yesterday, be assured that someone else was ready and it wouldn't have been for 24 hours. Sorry again :( - Alison❤02:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sarah, I got an email to look at this page. It's not Gold heart. And Allie, I won't eat your 'sand-witches', maybe later;) . Looks like a Salaam wit-chunt, or is it witchunt, or witchhunt, whatever ;)) First cut is the deepest. 86.43.121.108 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Go away, GH, it *is* you. Checkuser was pretty conclusive. Welcome back to your Eircom range, BTW. "Email" indeed :( - Alison❤19:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A tag has been placed on 1012 in Ireland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thedjatclubrock :)(T/C)02:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
No...you got the right address. But you leave me bruised and battered, washed up on the shore - deflated, distressed, despairing and lots of other dark dank dreary dismal things beginning with "d". Sarah777 (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Emo
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Back from the Outback
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
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)
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)
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)
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)
Latest comment: 16 years ago24 comments8 people in discussion
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Rockpocket23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Rockpocket23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. It is quite unacceptable to label people "fascists". You also left the same post on another user talk page.[6] It is quite clear in the context of the conversation that you are referring to a specific admin. To any reviewing admin, please see extensive warnings to Sarah777 and recently at Wikipedia:TER#User:Sarah777. Tyrenius (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. Rockpocket03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no personal dispute. I have had very little to do with you. I only saw your post below about me after I had blocked you. I had your page open with the edit window while I was blocking. When I posted the block notice and saved, your message appeared. Tyrenius (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
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).
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.
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.
Do not remove my post which is relevant to your unblock request. As you can see[8] I was restoring your unblock request when there was a ec. Tyrenius (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
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)
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)
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)
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 ;) Rockpocket18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on 770 in Ireland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. flaminglawyerc 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)
852
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
That's that. But something else occurs to me. You can take a good picture and you have a snazzy camera and you're in Dublin. I was wondering, are you ever likely to be in the National Museum of Ireland, specifically the Kildare Street bit? The picture we have of the Ardagh Chalice is not so wonderful. We don't have one at all of Saint Patrick's Bell Shrine. Just a thought. Angus McLellan(Talk)23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'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 ignoresWP:IE or its equivalents then Arbcom has lost the plot. Sarah777 (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
File:Old form Execute.jpgWikipedians enforce justice on a miscreant who flagrantly creates content relating to human history, rather than concentrating on fiction.
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)
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):
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)
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)
Star
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
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)
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." :) Ty18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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"
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. Specifically, you copied the contents of Emo and pasted it into Emo (music). This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming articles is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. --Muchness (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
FA
GA
Confirmed by checkuser that 78.19.xx.xx is the banned editor Gold heart (talk). I should have seen this and checked sooner. Sorry about all the hassle, Sarah - Alison ❤ 01:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
! Sarah777 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
