Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:15, 3 July 2007

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Archives

Archive 1

Your Campaign Against Me

Indeed I do wish to participate. But I'm gone till this evening so don't take the silence till then as disinterest. I will address the matter then; as you have been preparing your case for months I may need some time to respond fully. I also note that there is space only for those who wish to endorse your proposal. Where does the defence insert their tuppence worth? (Sarah777 09:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

Hi Sony, I notice this is still ongoing and I think, as you say, RfC has become necessary. Sarah is far too quick to accuse others of aggression and yet her own comments on these pages are almost always uncivil. I encourage you to go ahead and I'd be happy to add my name to an RfC, if you wish, but I still suggest you add some more recent diffs. There's so much material on the relevant pages that you could also afford to be a little more selective when making your case. All the best.--Lo2u 12:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy to. Didn't want to touch it without permission. All the best. --Lo2u 12:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sony. I've just updated some diffs with newer ones taken from talk:British Isles. Probably best for you to update the preamble as it's written by you in the first person.--Lo2u 00:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done it. All the best.--Lo2u 00:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys! Just a question - is this collusion in formulating the campaign against me legit? May I organise my defence with some others? Regards (I won't wish you all the best!) (Sarah777 06:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Sony, to ensure this RfC doesn't expire on a technicality - someone might decide the same dispute isn't being certified - perhaps an earlier diff of your trying and failing to resolve the dispute, in relation specifically to British Isles would be a good idea. I'm sure such a thing exists.--Lo2u 01:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion From Modern Celts

No i am not offended, i just find it bizarre that you see it fine to put the entire English under one banner (murdering land owners etc), yet make reference to the English putting down all Irish as terrorists, Welsh as Pityakkers or Scots as Oil-riggers. Because let me tell you not one English person i've ever met would believe that those stereotypes are anything more than a very small part of a population. The north-east itself was built on Pityakkers and Shipbuilders, infact in the early 1900's i fairly sure being down the Pits was the occupation for about 60% of males from my region - hows that for a majority? Outside of 'Modern Celt' nations, people weren't calling the Welsh Pityakkers, they were calling Geordies and Mackems Pityakkers - and making fun of that. Gazh 09:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But you can't blame the English people for those things, maybe the throne and government, the pompous upper-class and maybe even to a degree the middle-class, but you cannot blame 'The English' for those things, it's too broad a word.

http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/facts/UK/index41.aspx?ComponentId=12619&SourcePageId=18129

Check the link above (apologies if it doesn't hyperlink as i'm not fully familiar with Wiki yet), scroll to the second graph and as an Irishman you will probably notice how low Wales and NI are that scale, as an Englishman from the North-East i notice that we are the second poorest region of the UK, below Wales and well below Scotland in the Median wage structure.

Your point about Schools with one teacher, and although i would hazard aguess that your 30 Miles estimate of a next school is probably an extreme case, these things also happen in my region, there are alot of old mining villages where the population was too small and there wasn't enough money as they had to close schools as a result we have alot of kids in the Town schools travelling from outside. Gazh 10:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Sony from the Dreaded 777

Sony, I have absolutely no wish to quarrel with you; fact is we go weeks in perfect peace until a certain subject comes up. My beef with you (apart from the referrals etcetera) is you don't accept that a) I act in good faith and b) genuinely hold a different viewpoint and c) seek to remove what I think is anti-"Irish" (for want of a better term) pov - not impose "pro-Irish" or "extreme Republican propaganda". You may feel I am not taking this seriously - I certainly am; I find it exhausting - and I am not easy to exhaust! Regards (Sarah777 23:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Regarding User:MarkThomas; Sony, if this guy keeps up the vicious personal attacks, calls for permanent bans, provocation and downright incivility I am going to refer him. As he seems to be very supportive of your campaign may I appeal to you to ask him to stop the incivility and personal attacks? Regards (Sarah777 20:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

You have a right in Misplaced Pages to complain at the usual places Sarah777 - you can address me directly on those. I am not sure how far your complaint will go given your own repeated conduct and the fact that there's a lengthy RfC about it, with many editors supporting that, but there is no need to beat around the bush. Also you will need to point out the cases of "vicious personal attacks" since I was just pointing out facts. I also personally find it quite funny to see you posing as having no POV as above! Clearly from other places you see it as your role to be engaged in a sort of combat for the Republican POV on WP and that is what I and other editors oppose in your conduct; not the POV itself but the combative tone. MarkThomas 07:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I've just twigged that the above might be an attempt to suggest that Sony-Youth is running a "campaign" and that we are acting collusively. Neither is correct in my opinion. MarkThomas 07:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I replied on Sarah's page. Again, let's reiterate - there is no "campaign", Sarah. Please stop posting messages (here and elsewhere) saying that there is. Eleven people have now endorsed the RfC as it was brought. Four more have that you behave incivilly and warning you that Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a battleground (including yourself!) and seven more that you should "calm down and tone down and work harder to stick to verifiability and NPOV" (including youself again!). There is no "campaign" against you, only concern at your conduct. --sony-youth 08:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What I see is concern about my conduct only from those who oppose my pov. (And sorry Sony, that includes you). I also see a campaign. I also see Mark and others suggesting that I am not a person but some "front" for a political cabal. I see insults, incivility etcetera (greater than anything in the citation) coming repeatedly from some of the editors supporting you, including yourself Sony. I see considerable support (despite the fact that unlike you, I have not canvassed) for the opposing view that the incivility of the accusers at least matches my alleged incivility. And I have suggested a compromise. But despite your lecture about WP:NOT being a "battlefield" you make it one. I have extended the olive branch and you have rejected it. (Sarah777 18:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

"oppose my pov" - there goes your central misunderstanding again about Misplaced Pages Sarah. It isn't a platform for your POV or a warzone between you and those "opposed" to you. It is meant to be an NPOV place. The only person right now trying to make this a "battlefield" is you. In fact, many of the people you repeatedly accuse like myself are not opposed to the Irish Republican POV being represented in articles as you will see from my edits where I could easily go into "battle" (your words) about some of the ahistorical and unfactual accounts but don't because I know they have a valid place in the historical record as being the beliefs of your community. I think the difficulty here is that you are struggling with the very nature of Misplaced Pages where other people will be inclined to challenge things. Have you considered running a blog? That's maybe a place where you can run your opinions in a more managed way. At present all the evidence from your endless trolling and sniping is that you don't enjoy WP unless you get a buzz out of kicking people, in which case you will end up banned one way or another eventually - and that's no threat or attack from me, just stating the obvious. MarkThomas 09:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarah and Mark, please continue this on one (or both) of your talk pages. --sony-youth 09:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Sony, I'm back sort of temporarily at the moment, and thanks for the kind words. Some of "those" pages will always generate a bit of controversy, a peep at the archives will show that. I think it's good to "open up" and state the concerns and opinions. I am pretty sure the differences with Sarah777 are only a blip on the "big picture", and will be viewed with reasoned humour after a short while. So good editing, and see you around from time to time. Gold♥ 12:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Former editor Known as One Night in Hackney

One Night In Hackney has been blocked in what I consider is a very excellent parallel case to my own. Have you any views on that matter? On the circumstances? On the judgement of the blocking admin? I'm just interested to know your opinion on this Sony. Regards (Sarah777 21:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Copyvio

Hi Sony,

The section I removed is a direct lift from here. Unless it is paraphrased, or enclosed in quotes and given proper attribution, it'll need to be removed as a clear copyvio. Regards, Bastun 10:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded it to give correct attribution - its not Ritschel saying it; he's quoting another report. The section still needs a lot of work, I think. I'm unhappy with the heading - 'genocide' seems to be a minority POV (only the tertiary source for the Boyle report, really, and one would have to wonder about any bias inherent in a report commissioned by a 'Famine/Genocide Committee' (hmm. Must google them...)). It'd seem more accurate to title that section 'Refutation of genocide allegations'. I do think what can be achieved is more substantial work on the concept of neglect, cruelty, "laissez-fair-ism" etc... i.e., is it a really a famine if other crops are being exported? Bastun 10:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Alun's talk page on Britons

Britain is land of the Britons, albeit not with as much internal unity found in Brittany. The earliest history of Britain, says that the land was regional from the start. The three basic (England/Loegria, Wales/Cambria, Scotland/Alba) regions and Cornwall/Cornubia were as vital then as now, with the essential agreement among them that they were all Britons. In the absence of old Roman rule, Bretwalda came to the fore. Later on, King James reunited Britain and commentators of that era were enthusiastic as if it were some fulfillment of divine prophecy. It's not all about the English, whom are merely the largest and most advantaged region of Britain. Roman Britannia's capital was in London, while York was considered capital of the North in Britain (RE: Alba). Whatever haziness about the capitals of Wales and Cornwall of that period, we are left with the Arthurian stories which focus heavily on those regions. I think that Ireland is an entirely different relation, that there should be some way to withdraw from Ulster and annex Brittany in France to Britain instead. Enough Irish problems and Gaels. 68.110.8.21 03:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Bede writing in 731 had a slightly different picture of ancient times. For sure he saw Britain in a regional form, but makes clear distinctions between the English, Britons, Latins (that is Romans), Picts and Scots (that is Irish, not modern-day Scottish). He treats Ireland as seperate, but not so seperate as to be alien, and notes that there was a strong Irish territory in northern-western Britain (hence Scotland). The Picts he says were not native to the islands, arriving first in Ireland but being asked (quite politely by his account) to leave and settle in northern Britain where there was room for them. The English too he treats as foreign, conquering swarths of territory from the British and border regions from the Scots (again, Irish, not modern-day Scots) and Picts. --sony-youth 08:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just think that the Arthurian Matter of Britain is what defines the British at heart, or base from which regional cultures deviate. This is the historic belief of the Britons, at least until recent revisionism to support contemporary political movements. The Arthurian legend is what the British disseminated to the world in the first place, during the Age of Discovery and the colonies. It was only the Victorian era, when a new Social Darwinian consensus arose that made it appear that the "Nordic" Anglo-Saxons above all, are the true Britons and that the rest were second rate. I have not heard of any films about the Anglo-Saxon era except Beowulf and Hamlet, which barely get press. The most popular epics of old Britain deal with the Britons at a halfway point between Roman withdrawal and Anglo-Saxon victory. 68.110.8.21 13:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sony, I have responded to you on my talk page. All the best. Alun 06:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Since it looks like with regards to the ongoing issue, nothing will be solved until ArbCom gets involved, I have created an ArbCom case about the ongoing issues with Great Irish Famine and its editors. SirFozzie 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)