::::::Thank you for the tag and compliment. I've created quite a few Irish-related articles which are still untagged. Offhand, I can name [[Mor O'Toole]], [[Robin Jackson]], [[Billy Hanna]], [[Kevin McGrady]], [[Davy Payne]], [[Elizabeth de Veele]], [[Maurice FitzGerald, 3rd Lord of Offaly]], [[Gerald FitzMaurice, 1st Lord of Offaly]], [[Eve de Bermingham]].--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 14:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for the tag and compliment. I've created quite a few Irish-related articles which are still untagged. Offhand, I can name [[Mor O'Toole]], [[Robin Jackson]], [[Billy Hanna]], [[Kevin McGrady]], [[Davy Payne]], [[Elizabeth de Veele]], [[Maurice FitzGerald, 3rd Lord of Offaly]], [[Gerald FitzMaurice, 1st Lord of Offaly]], [[Eve de Bermingham]].--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 14:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Wow! Impressive (even though they are mostly what Rock would surely describe as "bad guys" :) You are not here just for the chit-chat!! All now tagged. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777#top|talk]]) 22:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Wow! Impressive (even though they are mostly what Rock would surely describe as "bad guys" :) You are not here just for the chit-chat!! All now tagged. [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777#top|talk]]) 22:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
== in re your Troubles oppose ==
Hi Sarah, you didn't like the idea of discretionary sanctions, so I am alerting you to my post here: [[User_talk:Seraphimblade#Troubles]]. Currently the admin team is using two types of sanctions, and the result has been a lot of messy AE threads. With discretionary sanctions, the sanctions are customised to suit the situation. I'm struggling to understand how discretionary sanctions would alter the balance of Anglo-pov administration here; my guess is that you are concerned that these admins will be able to unilaterally create draconian sanctions. If we have more time and space to work through this, maybe we can find a way to ensure that doesnt happen. The "proper" approach would be to request an Amendment at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment]], but if we need to improve the wording, we may as well work through it before asking Arbcom to consider and enact it. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 04:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 04:15, 15 November 2009
**The Town Bears A Great History From 1100's to Present day Which Has Been Chronicled in a local book which got published and distributed to many local shops which was wrote by Students of the local Primary School**
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
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]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall I don't know if you have seen this, but it appears to be calling for a possibly viable solution to some of the persistent calls for weakening the death grip of admins on their positions. You have discussed aspects of that condition in the past, so I thought you might care to read the postings if you hadn't already. Sswonk (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-Halloween dreams
Last night I had this weird dream. I was at mass, and the priest was suddenly transformed into Freddie Garrity as he was in 1965, complete with glasses, braces and witch's laugh, and he began singing "I'm Telling You Now". It's obvious Halloween is upon us already.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting depressingly nostalgic for my lost childhood.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have a priest friend who looks a lot like Freddie Garrity did in 1965. Hmm........Spooky indeed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last night, I dreamt I was a muffler; then I woke up, exhausted. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were most likely visited by a succubus which is why you woke up exhausted. We are approaching Hallowe'en you know.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that's a better dream. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A chara, I provided the detailed rational you asked for here but as I outline here it did not make a blind bit of difference. They revert regardlass. Get a load of their rational here which is basiclly, so what if the editor who added the text in the first place was adding their own POV and WP:OR, I agree with the information regardless of why they added it. So we have two unrelated facts being use to provide "context" for an editors WP:OR. --Domer48'fenian' 15:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and am reverting where appropriate. We must be ever mindful of 3rr. Sarah777 (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
North Slob
Hi Sarah777, i just created a pretty basic stub for North Slob, i was wondering if you or any of your similarly interested colleagues would like to help to expand it - i'm contacting you because of your commitment to improving local Irish articles, let me know what you think. Cheers, Darigan (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will be delighted to help. I might even take a spin down the R742 to take some pitchers if someone else doesn't get there ahead of me! Sarah777 (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be North Yob, instead? LOL. Oh, Happy Hallowe'en, Sarah!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pitchers, i'm not sure if they allow drinking on the slob.. lol, Cheers Sarah777, best Darigan (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Passed the place this morning but didn't have time to stop! Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Q: What is it? A: Certainly one type of customized Wikipedia administrator office. Glass Houses and all, y'know. Sswonk (talk)
British Isles is permanently edited into Wikipedia (with no chance of reverting).
On your Userpage, your Tri-colors flag is replaced by the Union Jack (and ya can't revert it). GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That I am your new next-door neighbour!! Ha ha ha ha ha........Rolling Stones 24 hours a day at full blast.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you're in Vegas and Bastun is NOT asleep beside you! --HighKing (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ta v much chaps and chapette. I'm especially thinking about that last one HK....Sarah777 (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL - but it was Rashers who "fixed" my nightmare :-) --HighKing (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! The pov warriors go back to 2001. Maybe it's time we suggested a name change? RoI clearly is the wrong name for the Wiki article. Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't give it much thought. Just keep sending in those amazing photos. The 'Spud Sack'recipe, I loved. RashersTierney (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to fight off several attempts to delete that pic on various grounds including copyright; sneaking recipes into Wiki and advertising! Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was there! Great pic though. RashersTierney (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, here is a pictorial teaser. What is this yoke and where is it? (First to get the right answer gets a night with Bastun; second gets two nights etcetera :) Sarah777 (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A biometric 'witch testing apparatus'. No witches in need of legit. travel documents should comply! In the outside chance that I win this prestigious competition, bu**ered if I'm spending a night with mo dhuinne!, much less two! RashersTierney (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a friend at school and she entered a singing contest at a Feis. She was the only contestant and the judges decided to give her the silver medal based on her performance. I'll award you the bronze - three nights with Bastun - based on that reply :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once won a real bronze at a real feis (still have it somewhere). Will gladly trade it in to evade this undoubted honourt! RashersTierney (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you won it for what?? I won a Gold once for Agallamh ! Sarah777 (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the photo is meant to symbolise the Wikipedian editors who always seem to get reported and dragged over to AN/I.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A 21st century style of ducking-stool.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure Oscar Wilde - or maybe Groucho Marx - has an appropriate saying about it being better for people to be talking about you than ignoring you...
And why not with Rashers waitin' there for ya? :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what's keeping you from joining the pair, Sarah? I never reckoned you to be shy, LOL!!!!!! GoodDay is also waiting for his cue to jump into the scene!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All this talk has made me an' me little dog Rusty feel a bit dirty. We're off for a dip in the scholar dunky thingy an' will be waitin' refreshed for ye all when ye're ready to come back to bed. RashersTierney (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can my hot-blooded, red-furred tomcat, Tony join in the action?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Coarse he can, more the merrier, right after he's had his 'dunk'. That should cool his passions a bit. RashersTierney (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony doesn't need a dunk as he's pretty handy with his tongue.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony's quite handy with the ol' tongue
Geez! I think I need another wash! RashersTierney (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony has siblings, and offspring-if ye're interested.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry JB, he's just not my type (for Oh so many reasons). RashersTierney (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.A pity. Still a little cat-pimping never does any harm LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My cat Tony would put all the brassers and gigolos out of business.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sammy
Sammy Davis a.k.a. Samantha Pantha glowers with righteous disapproval in the name of all catholicism at the base and salacious tone of the operators of this discourse. Or maybe not, she may be smiling, it's tough to gauge her looks sometimes. Can I get away with blasphemy if I use a small "c"? How about WP:NPA, are the Thought Police headed my way? Sswonk (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! I swear I did not plan to post the above at exactly 17:11 on 7-11, that was completely serendipitous, Sarah777! Sswonk (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its all those innocent looking familiars stalking the place. Beginning to get decidedly spooky around here. RashersTierney (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm...I wonder what she was up to when she took the photo of Sammy? Sarah777 (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah777 are you suggesting Sammy-sent sprites subsumed my spirit to serendipitously snap a self-portrait? I thought I took Sammy's photo! Surpassingly spooky supposition you've sponsored. Sswonk (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! That was you :) I thought it was Jeanne - all those cats have me confused! Sarah777 (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, what's the story with the Iron cage above - looks like an Irish bridge, but the river doesn't somehow. RashersTierney (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is where the river, bridge and dunkin' thingy are. The river is "Kings River". What the yoke itself is I have no idea! Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible; though this thing had a slightly permanent look about it. Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt about it. The yoke is here to stay. Can't unbake the cake! RashersTierney (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you tease out the alternatives to the Iron cage I'd guess not many folk would end up in a better situation. Sarah777 (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no alternative (its a bit like taxation). Its a wee box of our own making. Well, not really ours, but you know what I mean. RashersTierney (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Standards melt-down
Will ya look at the pitcher-of-the-day above! Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck. How in the name of the Himalayan Gods could that bog-standard portrait win? (Usually the pic-de-jour is pretty cool). Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heard a good one today; the new N25 Waterford by-pass bridge is called the "Liam McCarthy Bridge". It bypasses Waterford :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm usually a positive sort, but in this case Rd7 may have damaged his chances of getting his Indef block 'repealed', by evading it. Anyways, I've asked a for a review at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK G'Day - do you have a link? Sarah777 (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've a problem, Redking7's been using his sock-puppet for 2-yrs (before & after his indef-block). I'm not impressed at all. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I
I thought you should know there's an AN/I thread about you. It doesn't look like you were informed, as you should have been. --John (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, how come you're so popular around here? Most people don't even know I exist!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe annoy some daft Admin and get blocked by him - might not help with "popularity" but seems to gain some "notoriety". Health warning: There are considerable downsides :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Popularity breeds contempt"- George O'Dowd, 1982.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. I'm not from Britain, I'm from Scotland. Ever been? --John (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, and I'm Jeanne B, not C. I do confess, however, to be the editor responsible for most of the smutty content on Sarah's talk page. I hereby offer my profuse apologies and promise to augment the content in future.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poetic licence folks. Scotland? It's like a second home :) Sarah777 (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeanne B; you will augment the smut?! Sarah777 (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:IMG BrownshillPortalsGate.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:IMG BrownshillPortalsGate.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:IMG BrownshillPortalsGate.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good news
As part of the Doughnut Drive 2009, you are officially designated as Chair of the Irish contingent and lead representative for the Gravy rings article. Thank you for your cooperation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. In some parts of Northern Ireland, ring doughnuts are referred to as "gravy rings" due to their being cooked in oil, itself colloquially known as "gravy". How is that for a start? Sarah777 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just another name for a doughnut? Where should it be mentioned? I see it's mentioned in a poem backaram (sp?) and other pub fare. Do you think it's notable enough for a worthwhile stand-alone article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly even in Dublin a jam doughnut had an internal cavity filled with jam and wasn't shaped like a doughnut! So I'd reckon the Belfast "gravy ring" is just another name for the American-style donut!! Sarah777 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, are you by any chance referring to the divine glazed doughnuts? I would die for a glazed doughnut. I adore glazed doughnuts. In Los Angeles, I lived a few streets away from a doughnut shop which was full of glazed doughnuts-ah talk about paradise on earth......I wanna glazed doughnut (stamps her foot in frustration)!!!!!!.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least
you have a sense of humour...Jdorney (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the constant attention of dodgy Admins! Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and the dodgy attention of constant User Page trolls :-) RashersTierney (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like me, Rashers? You're not accusing me of being dodgy are you?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, Jeanne. You, like meself are just constant ;-) RashersTierney (talk) 10:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cease talking in cryptics and tell me why the reference is wrong? Sarah777 (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd read the talk page before reverting you'd know. I'm not particularly looking for a fight here, but I cannot tolerate people using ridiculously bad sources - anything remotely political from the AHS is a questionable source - in biographies of living people. And we don't do coat-racks of criticism either. So please undo the edit. Angus McLellan(Talk) 23:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, that article was reported at the BLP noticeboard, two outside reviewers worked on the article to make it BLP compliant. Many of those criticisms are from very questionable sources and edit-warring over them, during a BLP cleanup is not a good idea. Especially since it has become clear this is has turned into a personal crusade for Domer. I'd stay well away, if I were you (and as I am doing). Rockpocket 23:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I really a goose?
Thanks Rock, but it isn't in my nature to ignore the guy being mugged out of cowardice. I am not convinced of the neutrality of some Admins here but am WP:AGFing while I investigate this further. Domer has made some points which, to put it mildly, have not been convincingly addressed. Sarah777 (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not averse to a little more detail on who the critics are and why they are criticizing him. The problem is, when Domer had his way, the article ended up like this (which I hope you can see is a BLP horrorshow). Editors who have a large axe to grind are not the people who should be editing BLPs, and making decisions about what is fair criticism. Rockpocket 23:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Hart is not a revisionist". A statement of "fact" by an Admin who can now surely be regarded as a participant in this dispute? Obviously he is not a believer in the duck test. Sarah777 (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hart is not a revisionist, nor is he a revisionist. He has been described as a revisionist, however. Big difference. Rockpocket 23:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. He is a revisionist who has also been described as a revisionist. Big difference, as you say. Guy on the right is a duck, not a goose. Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to your opinion of him, of course, but Hart doesn't describe himself as a revisionist and we don't use the duck test when it comes to proscriptive labeling in BLPs. So, no, he is not a revisionist for our article's purposes. Looks like Angusmclellan wasn't messing about when he was talking about page bans. I expect we'll see some blow back from this, but I have little sympathy. Domer had been warned multiple times, but he just doesn't seem to get BLP. I'm very close to seeking a similar ban for Dunmanway killings for the exact same reason. Rockpocket 23:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh...which living person, exactly, is involved in the Dunmanway article? Sarah777 (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where Hart describes himself as a Canadian but the article claims he is. As for "blowback" - you might be right. I am racking my tiny brain for other interventions I seem to recall by this Admin in Ireland-related articles. Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Valid question, you would think it would not be relevant, right? Unfortunately Domer has decided that, if the material criticizing Hart is not permissible on Peter Hart's own article, he can use it on the article about the Dunmanway killings. The result is such BLP gems as:
The person he identified as Frank Busteed and who's father was a Protestant Meehan writes, would have undermined Hart's sectarian thesis.
Which is particularly impressive considering there is nothing in the article about Frank Busteed, nothing about Frank Busteed's father and nothing about Hart's thesis. But why should we let those mere details get in the way of calling him "sectarian"?
As for him be called Canadian. If you have concern over that as unsourced critical content, then you could tag it (and deal with GoodDay's ire). Rockpocket 00:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that you are applying the duck test to Domer but not to Hart. Sarah777 (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we are not writing an article about Domer. Everyone is welcome to their opinions, so long as they don't try and strong-arm them into articles. Rockpocket 00:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My sentiments exactly. Sarah777 (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Peter Hart, a fellow Canuck? Who'd a thonk it. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know of him before he became infamous? Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, is when I first heard of this guy. GoodDay (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it then! Sarah777 (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Handsome duck though? Sarah777 (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what he looks like, there' no image at his article. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez! I'm talking about the bloody DUCK! Sarah777 (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Mine's red. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your what is red? Sarah777 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My fav color. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Had a Jeanne moment there!) Sarah777 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis OK, I'm not blushing. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that was funny Sarah. I'd hate to see you after a few pints; I'm quite strait-laced and my face would be as red as GoodDay's favorite color. --John (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick hi Sarah to say I'm still here! Despite some poor efforts. I had a bit of a laugh "two outside reviewers worked on the article to make it BLP compliant" LOL. --Domer48'fenian' 18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe two aliens would be required to test compliance. Can't see the En:Wiki community producing the necessary WP:NPOV mindset. Sarah777 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if you want a really good laugh, go to Angus's talk page and read Rock's take on "reliable sources". Surreal! Sarah777 (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure what is so funny, A request was made at the BLP noticeboard when the article was thus, your preferred version, and I volunteered to take care of it, so rewrote thus, which you strongly objected to. If you think BLP compliance is a laughing matter, then I strongly suggest you stop editing them. Rockpocket 00:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting that the definition of "reliable sources" by the dominant Anglo male demographic on En:Wiki is a laughing matter. Wouldn't you agree? Sarah777 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get your facts right, Sarah. I "dismiss" a subset of media because it is not reliable by our policies. You appear to tailor BLP depending on your personal feelings about the individual, but some of us take BLP seriously irrespective of who the target is. Rockpocket 00:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh...Kilmichael Ambush is a BLP of who....exactly? (Certainly not the British participants!! Lmao!) Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I would have expected that sort of comment from a number of editors here, Sarah, but not you. Is anti-British sentiment so ingrained that laughing about the death of people, just because of their nationality, is somehow ok? So, so sad.
Anyway, the Kilmichael Ambush has exactly the same BLP issues about Hart as both Dunmanway and his bio did. I'll tackle them myself in the coming days, but in the meantime I have put a NPOV tag on that section. Please do do not substitute yourself for Domer over fighting this issue. It didn't work out well for him, and it will not work out well for you if you try the same tactics. Rockpocket 00:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Rock, may "I strongly suggest you stop editing" Ireland related articles if you can't get a grip on the concept of NPOV ( as distinct from "our" Anglo-American POV). Sarah777 (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't "substitute" for anyone. And I note your threats; a bit like the US or UK talking about "consequences" for all those nations who won't bend to their will. We see how that is working out - The rest of the non-Anglo globe is still laughing at that! Sarah777 (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, openly laughing about the killing of the people described in the article is unlikely to convince me you are speaking from a position of any neutrality whatsoever. Its shameful, it really is. It wasn't a threat, I was asking you to not get involved in something that will not turn out well, because I would prefer you don't end up restricted like Domer was. If you want to ignore that, then that is up to you. And less of the Anglo- business. I don't know who you think I am, but I'm Anglo-nothing. Rockpocket 01:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Rock, if you have a problem with jokes about the demise of the bad guys nearly 100 years ago then we are not heading to a great meeting of minds. And no apologies for that. Sarah777 (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given people are still dying today, supposedly fair game in the ultimate pursuit of the same goal, and given the glorification of such violence and those who perpetrate it, pervades discussions on these subjects, I find your flippancy to be provocative and in poor taste. "Bad guys" and, it follows, "good guys" are found in comic books and cartoons. Not encyclopaedias. Lets leave it at that, shall we. Rockpocket 01:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm......Hypocrisy on a platter
"people are still dying today" - sh*t; so humanity ain't immortal yet? Glorification of what violence? The occupation? Spit it out Rock - not like you to be so obfuscatory. Are you talking about the tens millions of poppy-wearing folk paying homage to violence - or someone else? Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know Rock, the common Anglo view is that the loss of tens of millions of lives was worth it for freedom and the defeat of fascism in Europe. Surely a few thousand lives in Ireland was a truly a tiny price for ridding, or trying to rid this island of the same? I don't see many squeamish folk claiming the gassing of Germans or the bombing of Dresden was too high a price to pay for victory in the world wars. The comics showing "Fritz" shouting "Ach! - these Englanders!" as they are graphically mowed down - comics and films that you and you cohorts were reared on. But any equivalent from the IRA in the War of Independence would be suppressed as "glorifying violence". I bet you never even thought of that, eh Rock? The double standards. The conditioning? Guilty? Take your hypocrisy and..... Sarah777 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about, say, a Polish pizza delivery man. Guess what, no BLP for him either. Ha fucking ha.Rockpocket 02:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is rather funny, because it turns out the gentleman in question didn't die. So he would have a BLP. Still, the same couldn't be said for the soldiers who ordered the pizza. Or does being a member of an "occupying force" justify their shooting? Rockpocket 02:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? This Polish guy was shot during the War of Independence, was he? Was he aiding and abetting the the British occupation? What would the French Resistance have make of him? Some sort of meat topping I'd guess :) (Excuse the joke) Sarah777 (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the British soldiers who died were going where in a few hours? O yes - going off to kill people in Afghanistan. Gosh - so the shooters probably saved the lives of Afghan women and children! You want me to get upset about that? Sarah777 (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You asked what I meant by "people are still dying today, supposedly fair game in the ultimate pursuit of the same goal." Well, that was what I meant. Furthermore, there are editors who have expressed vocal support for that goal and for those who pursue it through violence. Those same editors regularly try to provoke other editors with comments almost exactly like you made above. I expected that from them, not from you. This is an encyclopaedia, not a battleground, and I see no need whatsoever to make provocative jokes. That is all. Now when I express amusement about the killing of any individual, German, English, Irish, Afghan, then feel free to accuse me of hypocrisy. Until that time, its worth considering that you are the only one laughing. Rockpocket 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that! What do you mean by dying for "the same goal"? Which goal? Still the obfuscation. This is an encyclopaedia, indeed. Not a pulpit for Anglo-centric POV. Remember our rule - that fact that someone might something offensive is no reason to censor it? I made a joke about unknown and un-notable armed trained killers who died nearly 100 years ago. Only someone who feels strongly that those killings were wrong would respond in the manner you did I would suggest. Bit of a give-away I'd say. And you bring a modern Polish pizza man into it. Implication: all people killed by shooting in the world at any time period died "for the same goal". That would require a major re-write of much of Wiki then. Wouldn't it? 83.70.248.21 (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Framing historical events in terms of right and wrong, good guys and bad guys is not something I am interested in. As much as you would like me to express one, I don't have an opinion on the moral and ethical benefits of killing 17 soldiers 90 years ago beyond what the reliable sources tell us. I do have an opinion on editors intentionally provoking other editors, which was what I thought you were doing. If I was wrong, and that was not your intention, then please accept my apologies. Clearly we differ in opinion on the appropriateness of laughing about the deaths of people, any people, but as you note Wikipedia is not censored for taste. Finally, could I again ask you to drop the Ango- label that you preface your opinions of my contributions with. Your appear unusually interested in my nationality, which is not something I have disclosed. If you really want to know the details, then I will disclose it to you. But as I already told you, I am Anglo- nothing. Rockpocket 19:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rock, can't recall was it email or whatever but I'm fairly sure you once told you were XXXXXXXXX, did you not?! Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what nationality XXXXXXXXX is, but let me be clear: it is not American and not British, therefore using me as some Anglo-American poster-child is wide of the mark. I think you may have been taking BigDunc, Domer and Vk's accusations a little too seriously. Rockpocket 23:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh! Of course you know what XXXXXXX is. You may be the only one who does! Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean XXXXXXX. Thought you meant XXXXXXXXX. By the way, I'm super glad you and Giano together managed to avert a potentially disastrous trans-Atlantic rift this evening. Even by Giano's standards, that is quite a tantrum. I would hate to see his reaction when Mrs Giano forget to put sugar in his morning tea... 'Who dared serve my beverage sans sugar. I DEMAND to know. I shall not rest until the incompetent is relieved of their tea making duties etc. How long before he tries to leverage this into a reason Vk should be unblocked, do you think? Rockpocket 02:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Ya'll are wasting your breaths. Canada will dominate the world, by the 22nd century. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We'll undoubtedly have a User:Sarah777 IVth valiantly fighting to rid the wiki of gross Canadicentralism... If it comes to pass, though, can you get your Canuck cohorts to officially rename the British Isles, so there'll be one less battle on here? I propose we call them Oileain Mór agus An-Mhór. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someday, it'll be the Canadian Isles. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally like my own creation:Brish Isles, although it might sound as if the speaker was just drunk.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concern
Sarah777, I am concerned by this edit of yours at Kilmichael Ambush,[1] where you reverted the article to a version by Domer48 from several weeks earlier.[2] Your edit summary said simply, "Restore best version". However, it appears that you have never participated at that article's talkpage, which makes the revert even more questionable. As I'm sure you know, articles in this topic area fall within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, which means that reverting is actively discouraged. Technically you have not violated the 1RR restriction on the article, but still, reverting several weeks of edits could be perceived as disruptive, and reverting without engaging on the talkpage is definitely disruptive. If you continue with this kind of behavior, you may risk being placed under probation, which might further restrict your editing. To avoid this, simply avoid reverting, and instead concentrate on changing text to a compromise version, as well as to actively engage in talkpage discussions when there is a disagreement. This will be the best way to ensure long lasting changes. Thanks, --Elonka 01:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK; firstly, I don't see how this is "troubles" related. The "troubles" (so-called) lasted from 1968 - 1998, the ambush was 50 years earlier. I don't always check talkpages before improving an article - does anyone? I can't be held responsible for the claimed "perception" of other editors (including those with a political axe to grind). But of course as I don't wish to be seen as disruptive by such as your good self I will refrain from further editing the ambush article as it appears my contributions are unwelcome. Sarah777 (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share Elonka's concern. Far from "improving" the article, your edit (for example) removed a reference and replaced it with a {{fact}} tag. You are obviously an intelligent person, so seeing you defend this problematic edit surprised me greatly. Please do be careful. --John (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John, I'm always careful, but not to the point of paralysis. Note my kind words to Elonka even though after an utterly indefensible indefinite block by Fozzie a few years ago she wanted to extend it to have me banned forever? I nonetheless hold no grudge. How careful is that? I mean really? I'm not Mother Theresa. Sarah777 (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it's nice of you to call me intelligent. I think you're cute :) Sarah777 (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Troubles related articles
As I have now discovered (thanks Elonka) the Kilmichael Ambush is a "troubles-related article". I must repeat my request for some definition of what "troubles-related" means. Being a believer in cause and effect (at least in the local Universe) I can't see how the Ambush was related to events that occurred half a century later. Is the article on Ireland "troubles related"? What about the M50 motorway (Ireland)? I assume, more obviously, that just about any article about the British Army is "troubles related" - at least there the connection is obvious. But we need some guidance here. Sarah777 (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah an article about a footballer was tagged as Troubles related by Elonka Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer). So the scope grows it appears once the name Ireland or NI is mentioned it is troubles related. BigDunc 12:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think those Admins who see an analogy with Macedonia are in for a shock. The law of unintended consequences will kick in; though it certainly won't be unpredicted consequences. Sarah777 (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I've got an Irish ancestry userbox on my user page, does that make me Troubles related ? "You've got your troubles, I've got mine........"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the Anglo-Admins at ANI, yes, you are troubles related. Sarah777 (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I don't need to give any explanation. Another comment and you get blocked for a week. Sarah777 (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Goodbye cruel world. PS, who's gonna do the Infobox on the Lord of Thomond if I get blocked, hm hm?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarah777: Where edit-warring is taking place in Ireland/Britain-related articles, especially when it's involving the same editors who are just overflowing the dispute from one such article to the next, all can fall within the scope of the Troubles case. As you may recall (since you were involved in the discussion), this was affirmed via community consensus in October 2008, with the language, "When in doubt, assume it is related." See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. --Elonka 17:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GFA
It says it almost immediately Sarah. It says, hi this is Good Friday, and we agree that, 1.., 2.., 3.., 4.., 5.We acknowledge the substantial differences between our continuing, and equally legitimate, political aspirations... It says "...continuing, and equally legitimate, political aspirations..." I should go over it several times including the acknowledging difference part but I think I get it. I guess that means that the Republic will not be considering the North as Irish as one of its own as any time soon and that the Unionists will be insisting that any claims of them to be irish would be ridiculous, right? ~ R.T.G 13:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no wait, have I got his right, the Irish claims the North to be Irish and the Unionists say thats Ok and they assure each other they aren't going to do anything about it? It couldn't be as simple as that Sarah, somebody had to lose out, what do you say? If somebody doesn't lose out of that agreement soon they will all be killing each other up there. ~ R.T.G 13:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RTG, you've achieved the near impossible - you've lost me :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, you are very funny but you are misled to believe that the Good Friday Agreement shirked the republics claims, or the Unionist claims regarding Northern Ireland, it merely said that they will not be fighting about it so visciously and concentrating on peace building instead but, what's particularly important to the definition is that the Republicans accepted the Unionist claims to be legitimate and vis-versa, the Unionists accepted the Republican claims to be legitimate with agreements that all claims were continuing, no change in claims just accepting peace and that, encouraging NI to do its own thing now that oppression and uprising was off the cards. It probably is the most agreeable agreement they have ever made ;) ~ R.T.G 13:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Kavanagh Centre
The aticle Patrick Kavanagh Centre which I created was tagged notable and refimprove by user Toon05. I have added external references since and would be grateful if you could review it. It is still a stub article I think and requires more work. Cathar11 (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cathar11 I tidied up the citations using the Reflinks script, a very useful tool for bare inline references. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ive used the tool now to tidy up other article refs.Cathar11 (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! I've removed some redundant tags and added the article to the IrelandWikiProject list. Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review and help.Cathar11 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PK is my all-time favourite poet. Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast, you did made an extensive and controversial revert without comment, and Jdorney also reverted. And yet, "All [you] see there is Rock edit-warring"? That is extremely unfair and misleading. While we may disagree on a number of issues, I did not expect you to try completely misrepresent edits simply to try and demonise me. Please strike your comment (or rephrase if you wish to make another point). Rockpocket 19:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I was peed off with you and the comment was neither accurate nor fair. Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If you want to accuse me of edit-warring. A link to Dunmanway killings should do the trick. Not my finest hour :( Rockpocket 20:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vk's Troubles
Howdy Sarah. Fear not, I struck'em out. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is disappointing, frankly. Sarah777 (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of persuasion from Rock nudged GD on his way. BigDunc 21:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's best that I remain 'neutral' at Vk's banning case. If VK's agrees to Civility Probation, he might avoid an indef block. There's alot of editors out there, who are sore at him. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if he agree to Civilty Probation, he won't be banned. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How did Rock talk you out of a sensible position? Sarah777 (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just change your sentence??!! Sarah777 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought I figured out your ealier question. Why'd I change to neutral? Vk past sock-puppetry (which I had forgotten). GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A mere bagatelle. Victims of imperialism must resort to whatever is to hand. Sarah777 (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) I reckon, Wikipedia doesn't see it that way. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki (En) is a pawn in the hands of Anglo-American Imperialism. We all know that, surely? Sarah777 (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your incredulous? Sarah777 (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an atheist. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doubly so, I'm also a republican. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 777, I hope you are clued in that less than half of this country buys any of that neocon Reagan-Bush crap and in fact many others worked through three elections to prove it. Millions here are well aware of the subterfuge and mendacity that crowd swims in, the first two Bush elections were frauds, so maybe you ought tone down the broad-brush rhetoric about Anglo-American Empires and what not. I know old habits are hard to break, but jeezus. By the way, re: User:Jesuzfreak777, are you two related? Smile. Now. Please. Sswonk (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Don't feel bad. Anglo-American is the dominant culture in the Anglosphere; same folk who think wiping out the Apaches or the Irish natives was all part of 'progress'. People who can recognise the Holocaust for what it was; but can't see that extermination of aboriginal cultures was exactly the same thing. We have Anglo-Americans in Ireland! - folk who downplay the physical and cultural genocide against the Irish-speaking culture. But I can't be too precious here. What I see is what I call. Sarah777 (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Jesuzfreak777 only joined us yesterday! But I can confirm that I know him not. Though the cock has not yet crowed even once, it being near midnight. Sarah777 (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Savages, the word once was. And I am old enough to have lived through segregation and beyond. They can knock down John Brown and Malcolm X and King and Bobby Kennedy, but once the truth takes root, they'll lose out. And they're still trying to get it back, some of them. That's milder than genocide, no doubt, but we did have our worst war over it. The natives in Massachusetts were largely wiped out by influenza and smallpox, and not at the hands of the colonists. This state gets sullied around by the big western ones that did the major ethnic warfare thing. This is all too much to go into right now on this page, and I'm going to click "Save page" before that clock strikes. Unless there's an edit conflict. Not feeling bad, – Sswonk (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See you soon. I noticed today they were building a bypass to the west of Mullingar. "Clonmore" road the signs said. It seemed like a 1km long viaduct over a bog, but it was dark. Sarah777 (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article, then fixed a layout issue. The TOC is very long, it might be better if {{TOClimit}} were used. By the way, the red links should tell that you that shamcousin Jesuzfreak was a shooting star. Sswonk (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! It don't look half bad (as you Americans no doubt say :) Sarah777 (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I've changed my mind (again), at Vk's case. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with 99.9% of republicans is, they don't seem to care about Irish culture to begin with. Its all about victim-complexes' and mythologies (almost identical to the psychology of Marxism). How many know who the most famous Irish philosopher, Eriugena is? Could tell you what Leth Cuinn and Leth Mogha are? Can name a single Irish king outside of Brian Boru? Could tell you the difference between saints Brendan, Malachy, Flannan and Senan? Or what the difference between the O'Neill and O'Brien was? The republican grouping on Wikipedia never tries to improve these central Irish culture articles, but instead spend all the time arguing about English-speaking tourists from Britain like Connolly and Pearse.
When I've been editing these cultural articles, I've only ever come across Americans helping to build them (like DinDraithou or Jeanne). Even when I've been editing basic Irish geography articles (such as County Clare and I'm trying to help make the Irish state article better), the sole contribution from republicans I've seen is arguing fanatically over title terminology (a la British Isles, or rattling on about "Tan Wars" on the talk). If they tried to help constructively build articles like this, instead of viewing Wikipedia as a battle ground and whinging about a so-call "Big Brit-Yank conspiracy", maybe the wider community would have more patience. And Ireland articles on here would be in a better state. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that relates to what, exactly? People edit in their areas of interest I'd guess. You sort out Flannan from Senan and I'll tackle geography. I'll also continue to point out the physical and cultural genocide of Gaelic Culture and people from 1550 - 1920, and the ongoing imposition of Anglo-American pov on Irish articles. The culture is DEAD. Or is like some species surviving in the last protected enclave in a park in Africa. Which is why only a few anoraks are now interested in Malachy. I don't have to have the slightest interest in the Tasmanian aboriginals to proclaim that they were exterminated by the British. It is a simple fact and assumes no knowledge or even interest what their culture was. I'm sure there is a point struggling to escape from your rant - it just doesn't quite make it. (And, btw, don't make assumptions about what 99.9% of "Republicans" don't know about. You'll end up looking even sillier that you already do). Sarah777 (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing Ireland to a bunch of tribes which objectively never developed any relevent civilisation ever, really drives the point home. Its cringeworthy and not based in reality. Much of the peasantry of Southern and Eastern Europe was at a comparable level of development, not nomadic aborginal Australia. Aside from clutering the encyclopedia with fantasty and mope, there doesn't really seem to be any relevent encyclopedic fruits from the whole self-degrading republican shtich, thus why the community seems to be fast loosing patience with the whole circus. Oh and if the Union Jack is as bloody as neo-nativists and other post-colonial apologetic third worldists protests, lets not pretend the Irish people were all wearing grass skirts and feathers in their hair until the 1950s, see Michael O'Dwyer and the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, you reckon that slaughtering "a bunch of tribes" is fine? I know that Irish civilization was more advanced than nomadic cultures - however I don't share the view that somehow that negates the fact of physical and cultural genocide. Either in relation to Gaelic civilisation of the plains Indians or Tasmanian tribes. The Union Jack is steeped in the blood of them all, and much more besides; like innocents in modern Iraq and Afghanistan. As for Irish bad guys - the world is full of them. But Ireland doesn't officially celebrate their savagery. Unlike the poppy-wearing morons from Britain. Sarah777 (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're an ignorant racist Yorkshire and if anyone wants to complain about what I just wrote, read what he opened up reading and note that I have come across this racist several times. Nobody wants to see your pointless racist accusations. You don't know what republicanism is, you don't understand it or you are just racist on purpose. Any of those ways, you don't care less. You are pulling phrases out of your backside and putting them in quotation marks to deceive people into thinking you are quoting others regular opinions. You have said nothing constructive let alone convincing here. Your ongoing extreme criticism of Irish, or any other people, is not appropriate for this wiki. The cultural development of our peoples is none of your concern. What is a "neo-nativist"? Clear off. If you do not appreciate foreign ethnicity, don't involve yourself with it. There is plenty of articles related to Yorkshire and England to involve yourself with. You are on the back of a one year ban for this behaviour. You don't need to discredit me racially and I have seen it too many times now so will be trying to compile a decent complaint about you. He's openly racist Sarah and that is his main agenda. If you want to stick to the wider community Yorkshirian, head out there and find it. You are obviously not picking up the Irish history with any decent success. You have had people picking at your suppositions on Irish articles before and you had better believe that resulting from this rubbish you are posting here, you still need a few things pointed out to you. ~ R.T.G 00:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me the whinging and crying. How does one be "racist" in this area, when my own ethnic background is half-Irish, half-Italian? (not that Wikipedia entails "race checks" before editing articles, we're an encyclopedia not an aparteidpedia) Republicanism is a socialist political movement, not a "race". I will continue to work on articles relating to Ireland, Irish people and Irish history, completely unfazed by your far-left cheast beating. I suggest you take your own advice and clear off, its not like you contribute anything in the way of content is it? Judging by RTG's Wiki spree tonight apparently "thats waysist!" is his favourite ad hominem. Precious. "Discredit you racially??", what exactly are you on. - Yorkshirian (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem with 99.9% of republicans is..." that is your problem right there... the racism in your opening comment which you expanded and compounded. Bring this material to a psychologist and ask, "If I were worried about my mental integrity, how best should I proceed?", you will be told, "Lay off the racism". Ok I am done. Just go and elswhere and complain about Bulgarians or someone else. I appologise Sarah, for this rubbish on your page. I will not continue it here. GLuck ~ R.T.G 10:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RTG, I was going to note that this editor seemed to have made some rather racist remarks but thought I was maybe reading too much into it as I have no previous knowledge of him/her. On reflection maybe I will class said editor in the "remove on sight" category. Thanks for the heads-up. Sarah777 (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cinema
Sarah, let me pick your brain. If you'd rather not give an opinion, I'm sure you'll let me know, but I'd like to read what you would recommend as a good movie to download or rent about modern Irish life. I recall The Last of the High Kings which is a teenage summer movie, Catherine O'Hara plays a zealously political mother. But she's Canadian/Chicago and a some of the main cast aren't Irish, faking accents and so on. That usually puts us Bostonians in a sarcastic mood if it's done wrong, which it usually is. Then there's Waking Ned Devine obviously exaggerated comedy and filmed on the Isle of Man. Looking for a "daily life" portrait with authentic characters and actors, if you can recommend something. I could read five hundred Wikipedia articles and synthesize my own view, to be sure, but I would trust your opinion if you have one you want to offer. Sswonk (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a film I loved called The Commitments. It dates from the dawn of the Celtic Tiger and is fairly funny. It was OK on Dublin working class life circa 1990 though the landscape was slightly bleaker than the reality. But not by much! More recent films have tended to be historical rather than hysterical. But I'm sure some of the watchers here will have some recommendations! Sarah777 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillas of soul and "mustang sally", the "blacks of Europe"...I downloaded this one, they kept reminding me of Simply Red, who I saw in an 1,800 seat auditorium in 1987, same year Doyle published his novel. Seems as though SR could have inspired it somewhat, or maybe it was just serendipity. Several of the street scenes reminded me of parts of Boston, but not the occasional pictures of the Pope on the walls in the homes, don't really see that. I have no idea how I put off sitting to watch this movie until now. I'll seek out Bastun's choices, they appear to be harder to find than The Commitments. Nice pick, thanks for that. Sswonk (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try 32A, a 2007 film. And I was just checking that was a valid link and about to mention The Commitments - or any other film adapted from Roddy Doyle too. Me and Sarah agreeing on something! That makes... um, two things, I think! The Commitments, The Snapper and The Van are all set in recession-hit Dublin when things were really bleak, but... um, yeah... plus ca change... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding, thanks both, I will look into them, and any further suggestions by TPWs. Sswonk (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the Snapper/Van was pretty good too - but I liked the music in the commitments. That and the horse in the lift. Sarah777 (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read the 32A link - and there was I thinking it referred to a bus route :) Sarah777 (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But Sarah, it is a bus route. When I lived in Baldoyle back in the mid-1980s, I always took that bus, along with the 32 and 32B-which in point of fact, practically passed by my front door.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tag line on the movie posters (including the ones on the sides of Dublin buses!) is "It's not a bus number, it's a bra size" :-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Bastun, please don't remind me of my traumatic adolescence when I had the smallest duckies in my class.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To borrow your phrase, don't feel bad, I thought it was an apartment number. Sswonk (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love The Commitments as I was living in Dublin roughly at that time when prospects were bleak for Dublin's youth; however, as good as the actors were, they just did not convince me as being working-class. One could tell they were in reality middle-class, such as Outspan, and the Clontarf-born Maria Doyle Kennedy, who does happen to be one of my favourite actresses. She kept the farcical The Tudors afloat when the whole lot was sinking like a soap operatic Mary Rose.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1268-2004
Cretin
Please don't attack other editors, such as you did here. Can you please remove this comment, since it will just aggravate people and make them less willing to listen to you. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I said the block was cretinous, not the blocker. It was. And the blocker shows no sign of remorse. Therefore the community cannot be confident that he won't make further cretinous blocks. OK? Sarah777 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be insulting you directly if I described your comment as cretinous, so I'll just say that the word was ill-chosen. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in this case I can confirm the word was very carefully chosen. Not only that but till I get an apology from the offending Admin I am prepared to repeat it. Sarah777 (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carefully chosen perhaps, but in my view, unwise and counter-productive. If you try to win an argument by insuulting other people this tends to backfire, since it makes people think that you have no facts supporting your position, and that you are instead forced to rely on rhetoric and emotion. Much better to present the facts as clearly as possible and refuse to be diverted into behavior that may make people think that you are the source of the problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Anal formatting"???? What problem would folk think I'm the source of? Vk's verbal incontinence? After two years I really don't care any more. That was a disastrous block by Fozzie and I see the same tactic at work here. I'm not expecting anyone to agree with me. I'm too long here to expect fairness from the "community". Sarah777 (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And while I am not implying an equivalence between my restoration of deleted articles and Vk's foul-mouthed utterances I am seeing a great similarity in a cretinous Fozzie indef block facilitating a subsequent ban. And I wonder about that..... Sarah777 (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, I don't, since I don't know anything about either incident. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And btw, I tell the truth. The numbers who might want to hear it are not something I can control. Sarah777 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as for "Please don't attack other editors" - you think the Fozzie block on me wasn't such an attack? It was way worse than anything I could say. No discussion. No procedure. No warning. No rationale. One month block. An apology and I'd forgive even such appalling behaviour as that. But there is none forthcoming. Even two years later. Sarah777 (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I recall there was another commonality. Elonka was involved for the prosecution in both cases. Sarah777 (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, the lot of you have such self-esteem issues I'm surprised any of you are allowed to own sharp knives... HalfShadow 21:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit slow HalfShadow; the lot of who? And the self-esteem issues are what? Please try and explain it in simple English as I'm not very bright. Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm overly handsome & also modest. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you at least half-right are G'Day! Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeanne B and her wonderful work!
Twilight Zone time. I notice the photograph on this page, which Sarah took, of the sign advertising a Franciscan Friary. Well, I just recently created an article on a Norman-Irish baron who had founded a Franciscan Friary in Youghal in the 13th century. Coincidence, eh?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, pure coincidence...but nice work Jeanne B. I've tagged it for IrlProj. Have you any other untagged gems hidden away in the wilds of Wiki? Sarah777 (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Impressive (even though they are mostly what Rock would surely describe as "bad guys" :) You are not here just for the chit-chat!! All now tagged. Sarah777 (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
in re your Troubles oppose
Hi Sarah, you didn't like the idea of discretionary sanctions, so I am alerting you to my post here: User_talk:Seraphimblade#Troubles. Currently the admin team is using two types of sanctions, and the result has been a lot of messy AE threads. With discretionary sanctions, the sanctions are customised to suit the situation. I'm struggling to understand how discretionary sanctions would alter the balance of Anglo-pov administration here; my guess is that you are concerned that these admins will be able to unilaterally create draconian sanctions. If we have more time and space to work through this, maybe we can find a way to ensure that doesnt happen. The "proper" approach would be to request an Amendment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, but if we need to improve the wording, we may as well work through it before asking Arbcom to consider and enact it. John Vandenberg(chat) 04:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
American breath freshener
