Misplaced Pages

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13

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

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 talk • 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ireland Wiki State of Play - Aug 16 2007

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

Category:Ireland articles by quality

Latest version

Ireland articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	6	3	27	33			69
FL			2	6			8
GA	1	13	63	173			250
B	30	193	437	862			1,522
C	29	209	955	4,509			5,702
Start	1	205	2,299	28,239		1	30,745
Stub			384	26,568	6	2	26,960
List		31	329	3,067		1	3,428
Category					26,275		26,275
Disambig					184		184
File					180		180
Portal					26		26
Project					20		20
Redirect		8	61	1,021	1,857		2,947
Template					3,210		3,210
NA					5		5
Other					71		71
Assessed	67	662	4,557	64,478	31,834	4	101,602
Unassessed				1		1	2
Total	67	662	4,557	64,479	31,834	5	101,604
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 343,324			Ω = 5.26

Assessment Log

'Dripsey River'

Its flows through Dripsey!

Cool pic

User "Fasach Nua" (blocked for 3rr) - but I found this wee gem on his/her page. It's in Georgia, USA. How would I nominate this for "Pic of the day"? Sarah777 (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder....maybe it isn't centered just so...or am I'm being too picky? Sarah777 (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the current "pic OTD"; technically perfect, a wonderful portrait of the old Charadrius-melodus. Sarah777 (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

How did the photographer get that bird to remain still, me wonders?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they nailed their toes down. 92.5.140.104 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope they didn't use super-glue! Poor wee thing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It sure doesn't look too happy about it. Go on Sarah, let the wee thing go. Jack forbes (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Will you give it to me, Sarah? I've already got two canaries who are well over five years old, plus a pidgeon. I could use another pet bird. Come on, please, pretty please, with sugar on top.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks - ben away for a few days R'n'R. No animal were harmed during the taking of that photograph, as we say in the movies. Sarah777 (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The times we live in

Curious exchange with our mutual friend Catterick here Talk:Cultural_relationship_between_the_Welsh_and_the_English --Snowded (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL!! Sarah777 (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

He and Tharky have gone do-lally on British Empire (not to mention my talk page). --Snowded 16:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it them keep trying to insert "France was invaded by aliens and were transformed into android dinosaurs hell bent on eating everything. Nevertheless The British Empire still kicked their arse and enslaved their women and children" into the text?!!! Sarah777 (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's probably at the mild end (love the idea though) --Snowded 16:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Williamstown Photo

Nice photo of Blackrock College. You picked a beautiful day to take it. :) --AleXd (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the weather glorious?! (In Dublin anyone). The trees make it difficult to get all the buildings in a single shot - I'd reckon about 10am on a clear midwinter day when the sun is from the southeast and the leaves are gone - preferably with a cover of frost or snow. Have your camera ready! Sarah777 (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming

The Arbcom has directed that the articles about Ireland not be moved until discussion on the correct names of the related articles is complete. Domer48's edit, which you reverted to, was in violation of this ruling.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's BS. I did not violation any ruling. Everyone knows that RoI is not the name of the State. Sarah was correct to revert you. How can our readers know that RoI is not the name of the State, if you keep removing the information. That is a violation of our policies, WP:NPOV is a corner stone. Consensus does not and never has overuled policy. The current text on the RoI is a POV fork and should be removed. P. S hi Sarah. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any article being moved; the text was merely made consistent with the subject matter. Also, re Arbcom, when are they going to come to some conclusion regarding the imposition of British pov on Ireland-related articles? The process seems to be going on forever. They classify any innovative WP:BOLD attempt to deal with British political terminology as "forking" but fail to deal with the root problem. As the British are numerically overwhealming on En:Wiki perhaps the only way to restore some WP:NPOV is by having new articles based on NPOV and leave the politically active British editors with their own set? Sarah777 (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Domer - long time etc. I noted that you were under siege and decided to lend a hand! Keep up the good work - and don't do anything I wouldn't :) Sarah777 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sound Sarah, I felt like Rosa Parks at a Klan meeting. Thanks for offering me your seat, now if I hold the driver down, you kick him in the nuts. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why can there not be articles Atlantic Isles or Atlantic archipeligo. Among other things it would include the Faroe Islands which (tell me if I'm wrong) is part of the Atlantic archipeligo. It amazes me that when looking for these articles you get redirected to British isles when either of them would have far more information than the BI page. Shouldn't the BI article be redirected to either one of these? 86.162.180.245 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. But that wouldn't fulfill the emotional needs of the "British Empire" lobby. If I had enough interest to write an article about the "Celtic Fringe" or some such, most of the content (if not the entire article) would be redirected to the "British" Isles as a "fork". The WP:FORK policy as implemented by British nationalist editors is an instrument of totalitarianism. Sarah777 (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Has there ever been an article Atlantic Isles? If not, I may even consider getting myself a user name and creating one. Would they dare merge it with BI if there where information there that could not be included in that article? The article would include information on the BI's so surely there could be no argument against most if not all the BI article being merged into the new article. Or am I being too naive to think this would be allowed to happen. PS, I'm the same person as above 81.159.14.141 (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you could demonstrate a significant, verifiable difference between the Atlantic Isles and the British Isles then you could certainly make a new Atlantic Isles article without it being merged. If one is a subset of the other (i.e, the current British Isles was part of the Atlantic Isles), then it is likely the British Isles would remain a sub-article, rather than being merged across. You could try to make a case that everything should be under the Atlantic Isles title, but I doubt you would reach consensus, since the argument usually put forward is that British Isles is the most commonly used name. I offer no opinion on the merits of that. P.S. Hi Sarah, its been a while. Rockpocket 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The BI cannot be the most commonly used name when the Atlantic Isles take in more than the British Isles. Sometime this week I shall rummage through my books and visit my local library to see how much I can come up with. 81.159.14.141 (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really follow that logic. The common name issue is only germane if they are the same thing, and if they are the same thing one cannot "take in more" than the other. If they are not the same thing, then they can each have their own articles. Either way, come armed with sources and you will get a much smoother ride. Rockpocket 00:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if you could explain this to me. If[REDACTED] have two articles one of which is slightly larger (Atlantic Isles) than the other(British Isles) due to information which does not and cannot be in the smaller article, can the two articles stand together even though they are so similar? If not, which article should be redirected. We can't redirect the Atlantic Isles article to the British Isles as it would have more information and would give the impression they are the same thing, and they are not. you are right about coming armed with sources. I shall endeavour to do so. 81.159.14.141 (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

By that logic we wouldn't have independent articles on the islands of Great Britain or Ireland, since both of them are smaller than their collective, The British Isles. Another example is Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia, all groups of islands within the larger Oceania. As long as it is sufficiently different, verifiable and notable we can have separate articles on both larger entities (groupings of islands) and their sub-entities (smaller sub-groupings or the individual islands). The key, in your case, is providing evidence that there is a significant difference between the British Isles and Atlantic Isles groupings. Rockpocket 03:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no article named Atlantic Isles, because I won't allow it. I'm the boss. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The boss? Listen son, the day your the boss is the day[REDACTED] goes down the tubes. Go and get a day job. 86.165.157.100 (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry sweetheart; 'dats the way it is, see? GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop trolling. Go away and do something constructive like writing an article. Are you able to do that? 86.165.157.100 (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm merely joking around. Ask Sarah, she's familiar with my sense-of-humour. PS: You should consider creating an account & signing-in. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP is under no obligation to create an account as this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. BigDunc 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's just a suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are the true standard of[REDACTED] then you can keep it. Someone else can create the article. 86.165.157.100 (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Party pooper. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your intervention really helped the encyclopaedia there, GoodDay. Maybe a review of WP:BITE could be helpful? Rockpocket 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is goading ip's part of his game? Even going so far as to gloat over it . I earlier said I was thinking of creating an account but do you really think I will now after he went out of his way to try and goad me? How many other ip's has he done this to I wonder. I won't post on[REDACTED] again. I just thought I should point out that there are some people out there you could do without. 86.148.187.138 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Sorry IP, I didn't know you were a newbie. This is one of those occasions, where my jokes 'back-fire'. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As the Beach Boys would say: "Don't Worry Baby, everything will be alright......."--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy

How have ya been, Sarah. It's been awhile since we've conversed. Hope you're doing fine, sunshine. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So Sarah is sunshine. What does that make me then, GoodDay, a thunder-cloud?!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If not for you Jeanne, the winter would hold no spring, I couldn't hear a robin sing, I just wouldn't have a clue, If not for you. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"Chirp, chirp, chirp". The robin is definitely singing now GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy G'day - stop teasing the punters. Olivia N John an old flame?? Sarah777 (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And howdy Jeanne of course:) Sarah777 (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And Rockpocket, Dunc and the IP. Did I forget anyone? Sarah777 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorcha, tar ar ais le do thoil a chúisle mo chroí! Is fada linn uainn thú. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I assume they are talking about you and me here BigDunc 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah. Only you:) Sarah777 (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Me I am always nice to our all powerfull masters who can do no wrong ;) BigDunc 19:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No Dunc - you need some grovelling and forelock tugging lessons. Sarah777 (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was good at that maybe your right need to go to forelock tugging lessons. Then I can kowtow with the best of them. BigDunc 19:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

With the worst of them! Sarah777 (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

See what I mean need them lessons bad . BigDunc 19:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't pointy-ears just lift the effin' block? It is manifestly wrong. So much so that I fear it exposes some of the "sitting-on-their-hands" brigade. Sarah777 (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop inflaming the situation by insulting SarekOfVulcan. Your objections have been noted and are being considered. Please re-read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. It's more important that we remain calm and polite to each other in stress incidents, to avoid escalating disputes.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think there was any insult per se; merely an objective assessment of the block. It is truly, truly, truly one of the worst I have ever seen by a Wiki Admin. I will confess that I wouldn't be completely uncritical in my assessment of the Admin Community on an ongoing basis. But really? However I will be guided by your apparent wisdom and shall cease and desist from further reference to the Vulcan. Sarah777 (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Ireland article names case

Hello, Sarah777. For your information, an amendment has been proposed to the Ireland article names arbitration case. As you were a named party in that dispute, you may wish to voice your opinions on this request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names. If you have any questions, please contact myself, another clerk, or an arbitrator. Thank you. For the Committee, Hersfold 14:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Your statement

As Mooretwin (who is generally on the opposite political pole to me on British/Irish issues) points out, there are compromises acceptable to reasonable editors on both sides, but Wiki appears unable to contemplate any change in the status quo.

I'm puzzled because this appears totally at odds with your comments of the last few days. You, I and Mooretwin are all in agreement that there is a compromise "acceptable to reasonable editors on both sides." This is obviously the Ireland (state) / Ireland (island) solution, right? Do you realize that Domer is among those editors who opposed this solution most robustly thereby stymieing it? Indeed his only acceptable solution is so extremely partisan that it isn't even deemed acceptable to the majority of the Irish editors! So why on earth are you campaigning on his behalf if its your belief that there is viable solution, when he is as responsible for the failure to reach compromise as anyone else? I feel you are being blinded by nationalism here.

If, like me, you think there is a reasonable compromise, its time to stop supporting those on both sides who are digging their feet in and holding out for their own POV preferences. The little charade earlier this week - attempting to merge the articles on the island and the state - is as much an obstacle to reasonable progress as any British cabal. That course of action is likely to push people apart rather than bring them together and will cause even deeper entrenchment in those resisting compromise. Its time for some pragmatism: If you are serious about reaching a reasonable consensus, then stand up for that rather than lining up behind anyone waving the Irish flag. As it stands, too many editors appear interested in fighting the good fight than actually reaching a compromise. The real problem here are those individual unwilling to compromise - not any particular nationality. Rockpocket 02:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rock, I opposed what I think was a very bad block on Domer. I disagree with Domer on lots of things. For example, I'm obviously closer to Mooretwin on this issue; not because I especially like the formula but because it is a reasonable compromise. Both Unionists and Nationalists have difficulties for political (rather than encyclopodiac) reasons with making Ireland (the state) the primary location of the name "Ireland". Unionists because they see it as a "claim" on Northern Ireland; nationalists because the feel it "abandons" Northern Ireland and is a "Free Statist" notion. The real problem here are those individual unwilling to compromise - not any particular nationality. That is probably true; my issue I guess is that across a range of naming issues their uncompromising folk far outnumber "mine". I don't think I am blinded by nationalism, rather I'm highly sensitised to detecting nationalism of the neighbouring sort, British or American. But I accept you may disagree. (I also feel a wee bit abashed as I realise I was putting undue pressure on you to act when no other Admin else was either. On reflection, my slightly explosive sudden involvement in the issue was a gut reaction to the Domer block. I'm working on this temper issue with my personal trainer) I'm taking Collaboration lessons - you've no idea how difficult it is for an Irish editor to reconcile with the concept of "Collaboration". Sarah777 (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful and honest reply, Sarah. I also think it was a bad block on Domer but, my God, he makes it difficult support him. I can't really disagree with much of what you say, although another way of looking at it is that having less unreasonable folks on your side makes it easier for your to organize a united front! I honestly believe that if the Irish editors, en masse, were to push for the compromise then it would go though, because there are enough reasonable editors in the middle and on the other side that would agree. The problem is that those (unnamed) editors who continue to push for unreasonable extremes are playing right into the hands of those who want to keep the status quo. I guess I just find that really frustrating, which was why I (somewhat unfairly) brought it to your page. Rockpocket 01:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

O Holy God. Another atrocious block, this time the Irish editor was MusicInTheHouse. No ****ing end to this? Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh - and there goes Mooretwin, for a month. That'll bring a solution closer. Not. Sarah777 (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You might have remembered the blocking admin (WMC) as being the very same admin that doled out my first (only?) block while breaking every rule by being an involved editor, etc. Although if MooreTwin has 10 blocks (I never knew) and hasn't learned, it's a particularly harsh lesson - especially since WMC is talking about making it indef if he edit wars within a month again... --HighKing (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

>Unsupported comment by WMC removed at this point.......<Sarah777 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an admin link, but you're right, I've had a grand total of 3. And I see you've had 9! --HighKing (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

>The nine times blockee is WMC.......<Sarah777 (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I despair too, but really, they are probably deserved for the sheer stupidity of it all. All that edit-warring over trivialities, two blocks and not one person bothered to even try to take it to the talk page? Moreover, that is a WP:Good Article which means its already in a very good shape and therefore is unlikely to need MOS changes. When people get involved in such short sighted, petty edit-wars its difficult to summon the energy to defend them. Like I said above, too many editors appear interested in fighting the good fight than actually reaching a compromise. Rockpocket 01:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, thanks again re my block. My Rosa Parks comment went down like a lead balloon as part of the review, I can’t remember weather it was considered uncivil or disruptive so I’ll watch my P’s and Q’s. Rock, as much as I disagree with you, and I do, if I felt you were in the right and were being unfairly treated I’d be the first one in there and you know that. Remember Alison was getting all sorts of stuff thrown at her, despite our very public disagreements I jumped in very heavy handed against her attacker and not one person mentioned my incivility on that occasion. I’ve even jumped in twice to prevent Moortwin getting blocked. That’s just the way I am, and I treat editors as people not enemies. There is not much point saying a block is bad and not doing anything about it. You had the same opportunity before on the Hunger article to act on a bad block against me, and you did the same thing as now. Regardless of the additional two blocks I’ve just had, I’d still defend you or any editor I believed to be in the right. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

But that is where you are wrong, Domer. You are essentially claiming I am "doing nothing" unless I "act": meaning I either use my tools to unblock you or abuse the blocking admin until s/he gives in. That is not going to happen for a number of reasons, not least because prior involvement absolutely precludes using the tools. Like any other editor, I can - and I did - request the blocking admin reconsider and I also strongly encouraged a review by an uninvolved admin. Unlike anyone else, I also did my best to try and stop you getting yourself in that situation by urging you not to continue along that path. You didn't to me listen then, so why do you expect me to bail you out afterwards? So I'll do you a deal: I'll canvas harder on your behalf next time you are blocked on the condition you heed my advice next I warn you that you are approaching block territory. Rockpocket 00:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Domer. I won't contradict Rock's advice as I have often (but not always:) followed his advice myself. But I must admit I was chuckling at your Rosa Parks analogy! If I hadn't seen similar attempts at humour "taken down and used against me" in various RFCs etc I'd find it hard to believe that some Wikonians could be so devoid of humour. But I guess that's Americans for you. Sarah777 (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple units of Ireland

As I was saying to Willie, Multiple units of Ireland had just got to be the sexiest article on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing vs misrepresenting

Re ; refers. You miss the point: I'm not complaining about you removing my text, but about replacing it with something that misrepresents what I said William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I dispute the allegation of misrepresentation. Show me proof. Sarah777 (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I did. You said "Unsupported comment by WMC removed at this point" . My comment was not unsupported - it was supported by a link readable by any admin. If you prefer, a link that you can read is . Furthermore, there is no question that my original assertion was correct - even HK admits it, which is hardly surprising, because as I've shown it is easily verified William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure...I see four blocks, you claimed three. I'm a stickler for exactitude. Sarah777 (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But not a very careful one. Look closer. There are three blocks, and one "2008-07-29T22:37:59 Ddstretch (talk | contribs | block) unblocked "HighKing (talk | contribs)" ‎ (gave specified undertaking, so no reason to continue with block)" William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Willie, don't be so anally retentive. Sarah777 (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)