You've given me no choice; please see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Sarah777]]. [[User:Waggers|Waggers]] ([[User talk:Waggers|talk]]) 09:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You've given me no choice; please see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Sarah777]]. [[User:Waggers|Waggers]] ([[User talk:Waggers|talk]]) 09:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
== Banned from [[British Isles]] for 7 days ==
Per [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 restricted]], you are hereby banned from editing or participating at [[British Isles]], [[Talk:British Isles]], and any of the subpages for 7 days from now. Comments made in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABritish_Isles%2Fname_debate&diff=186730185&oldid=186683996 this] series of edits has clearly and flagrantly breached the arbitration remedies by being both disruptive and aggressive. Failure to comply with this notice or failure to maintain decorum when dealing with that article in the future will result in a block. This response is in regards to a report filed at [[WP:AE#Sarah777]] and review of related article and talk page histories. Thank you. [[User:Ioeth|Ioeth]] <sub>([[User_talk:Ioeth|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Ioeth|contribs]] [[WP:FRIENDLY|friendly]])</sub> 13:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of 13:44, 25 January 2008
There is a boating marina is located in the harbour. This serves as a jumping off point for many Irish yachts embarking on journeys to France and beyond. - Kilmore Quay
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Sarah is away on holidays and won't be back until later this week, but noticed this question. Try this link showing the precise geographical location, so it would seem to be correct. Cheers ww2censor13:11, 6 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]
N21/Adare Bypass
Hi Sarah777: No, I feel that the Adare bypass article would best remain seperate from the N21 page. I created it as an aside to the Adare page and, if anything, should be merged into that. The bypass is going to impact on Archaeology and the economy of Adare (including property rights) during the construction phase. When the road is completed then I would support merging it into the N21 page. rubensni
Hi Sarah, read just my contrabution Domer48 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC). They are still causing problems, on a number of pages I edit. Fozz placed it on the An/I notice board, and it just got filed away. Check out the posts of Fozz's talk page re: shot at dawn, fozz is being helpful. About the only one. Look after yourself, or we will be in the dock again ;). --Domer48 (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone is cowed for fear of being in the dock we ain't going to solve the WP:Bias and the abuse of Admin powers. Someone has got to be prepared to speak out. (Sarah777 (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hey Sarah, there is no easy way through this. Although Wikipedia is not supposed to be a democracy, when it comes to content disputes in high profile articles, it is a democracy of admins and the outcome tends to be the PoV of the majority of those admins who care enough to be involved in a given article. This is not at all how WP policy says things should work, but it's how they work in practice. Moreover, this is an efficient way to keep codswallop off the wiki but it also can smother highly meaningful, published "minority" takes on topics.
Discussing this kind of thing on an article talk page can result in blocks for disruption, even vandalism (threats/warnings will almost always come first though). RfCs only help when admin "abuse" is way, way over the top or an admin has become very unpopular ("disruptive") among a big group of other admins. The only steadfast way to get by two or more PoV warring admins is with three or more very experienced, articulate, cool-headed and patient editors who have some understanding of the topic and khow to cite under WP:V and WP:RS and are willing to spend the time doing it but, it's hard to find three editors like this who are all so keen on the same article at the same time (even if one goes looking for them). Without this, the most helpful thing one can do is find articles meaningful to you but which aren't steeped in controversy (there are tens of thousands to look through) and grow them with strong citations. A little "back and forth" about article content is always ok but when it becomes a dispute or PoV war, you may find the time you're spending on it isn't worth it, neither for you or WP.
Having said this, I should say Wikipedia more or less "works" over longer stretches of time, which is one of the cool things about this wiki. Another cool thing about it is, editors who like nothing more or less than researching and writing in themselves, to helpfully edit articles for the sake of it, can always find something to do without stirring up a fuss. I've found that abusive admins, sooner or later, do either mend their ways, get de-sysoped or stop editing altogether (I've seen this happen so many times). Mind, this is only my take on this, as an editor. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem Gwen, is the system is NOT working, in certain crucial areas. Not even nearly. One of which is on the issue of the "Anglo-American" world v. it's opponents. "List of massacres" shines a spotlight on this; we have two Admins edit warring currently and applying a totally uneven requirement of proof for killings by US Marines and other Western forces compared to killings by others. (Sarah777 (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, this is what I was trying to say. If an article (wontedly one on a topic which is widely known in popular culture) becomes controversial, the system may not work. As written, it should, since sources one way or another are given their sway, but some PoV warring admins have learned the trick of rejecting the sources themselves and when challenged, they resort to anything... like ridicule, followed by disruption warnings if one persists in discussing it on a talk page, I've even seen vandalism warnings. At the pith, there is a self-selecting bias in the system for the PoVs held by admins (whose first interest here is often, but not quite often enough, editing articles for the sake of it). Sometimes this saves time but too often it keeps helpful content out of articles. Moreover, this can get flipped: Admin bias can wind up encouraging sources which are nothing more than empty and dodgy hearsay but which support the prevailing popular PoV among admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem going up against this gob shite, I just bury them in top notch references, and watch them wriggle. It's when they abuse their admin tools, because they lack the cop on, to back up their opinions is were the community should step in. First off, a no nonsence approch accross the board on civility on article talk pages. If it is an admin, who should know better, impose a loss of tools on a graded scale. --Domer48 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, spot on. The latter's easier said than done though. I mean, some folks are here more for the MUD side of this wiki than out of any thrill for writing, research or meaningful learning (never mind the WP:SPAs since that's not what we've been talking about). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many happy returns - a sunny day after a hard frost last night. Lovely weather!(Sarah777 (talk))
Thanks - she's so excited - I hear there's nowhere like Galway for New Year's - and that's from a New Yorker! I am totally jealous. So be nice to American college students for the next couple of weeks - one of them may be mine! (Hoping she'll find something open on St Stephen's Day so she doesn't starve...) Cheers Tvoz|talk20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm used to being nice to young Americans - I'm related to so many, I have to be! "Don't mention The War" in the words of Basil Fawlty - good advice in my family this time of the year! And rest assured; I don't think an American has ever starved over here....yet :) -- Sarah777 (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Tvoz - I confess I knew we'd been, eh, debating somewhere recently but couldn't place you so I checked your page and to my (pleasant) surprise found this!
I am "she".
This user belongs to a Wikipedia minority, sometimes described as "the 20%", but I'm beginning to think that there are more of us than that.
I have suspected the same as all the other active Wikipedians I know (that's 1 actually) are female! And she posts under a male handle 'cos she reckons women draw disproportionate fire and abuse. - Not that I'd notice meself! -:) -- Sarah777 (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah. I'm going to be honest here and 'fess up that when I came to WP first, I edited under a guy nick. I'd actually been advised to do that :) However, it didn't last all that long and I ended up switching to a neutral one ("Ali-oops") and then before my RfA to the one I have now, which is my RL name. There are a lot more of us out there than any of us know, I suspect :) - Alison❤05:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Alison - I think you're probably right about that. If you look for the intelligent arguments, you'll find us..... :) But seriously.... I'm also increasingly surprised to find more and more folks who actually remember JFK as I do, not as history. I'm encouraged. Tvoz|talk06:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But; I don't really see why I should discuss the changes to the article with you considering that you are the only person with a problem with the original wording. I think you need to discuss your changes with the rest us to be honest.
Happy Christmas JD. POV words are against the Wiki-code no matter how many folk like them. But I'll have to argue about that tomorrow as I'm "doing the rounds" right now and heading for a hour in the hills - these days the sun slides behind Three Rock at 2.30pm. (Sarah777 (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Ah, we must be neighbours! Three Rock is a favourite spot of mine as well.
But still I think its you who is inserting the pov.
Your editions are mis-informed (incorrect) concerning Delvin / Clonyn Castle.
In Delvin, there exists the old and the newer (or more recent) castle both are associated with Delvin town.
The older and more VISIBLY obvious exists within the town itself. The more recent castle exists some 300m away situated on higher ground, where exists today an excellent golf course. One of the accesses to the Castle exists on the N52,from Mullingar arriving into Delvin on the left hand side. The golf-course castle access is situated on the Collinstown/Drumcree/ Castlepollard road living Delvin on the left immediately having passed the Catholic Church on the right.
With all the good will that you possess, your edit is therefore utterly incorrect. Clonyn and Delvin are undissociable.
Admit others with exact local knowledge to proceed at their guise.
Deepest apologies. What threw me was that the article stated that Delvin Castle was in Mullingar - which it obviously ain't. I checked a few websites and saw there were two separate castles.- Delvin/Nugent (which I know well) and Clonyn which I had never heard of. And I see Clonyn is again described (twice) as being in "Mullingar", which is 18 km from Delvin. Need to fix that, local or not! (Sarah777 (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Filling in the years
Hi Sarah, Happy Xmas to you. Many thanks for sorting out the tags put on some Years in Ireland articles. Every bit of date info I am adding is from existing Wiki articles. I am going thru all People from cats (eg People from Belfast, People from Dublin etc) and adding the birth and death details by Year. Incredible number of articles where no one has bothered to cross link to Years in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Eventually will also add them to Years articles in which Irish people are drastically underrepresented. You need to be a bit obsessive/compulsive for this!! Ardfern (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - it's a bit of a grind but someone has got to do it! I think the series is probably safe from the taggers now that BHG is on the case! Regards -- Sarah777 (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1641
Hi Sarah, you have raised a number of very informative comments on the above article. I have some concerns myself, but am a bit tied up right now. I had a bit of luck on one of the articles I like to edit, there was a lot of information I wanted to add, but could not work out how to introduce it, until this oppertunity presented it's self. I have a copy of a number of the witness statements, and a lot on the type of bullets, if I had added it earlier, the cry of POV would have been sounded. Some of the most intresting information is in the National Archives, so it should address any and all concerns. Take care, --Domer48 (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Domer; I guess the reaction to my attempts to eliminate pov language from certain articles gives the game away (or at least the sympathies of the authors). While some of us have no difficulty openly declaring our POV (without seeking to introduce it into Wiki) some folk with manifestly equal and opposite pov either believe or pretend to believe they have none. Many of these articles need to be examined for anti-Irish editing and nobody better to spot the bias than pro-Irish folk! (Sarah777 (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I have laid out my pov on my user page, and referenced it first. The one POV that really gets my goat is the whole religious conflict in Ireland one. Religion was introduced into the conflict, by the occupying power. If the Irish had been the same religion as the planters, some other difference would have been exploited or invented. This edit say it all. One of the best books I’ve read on the subject is “Life of Hugh O’Neill, by John Mitchel, first published in 1845. First chance I get, I post some quotes on the talk page. Paul Larkin, used some of the information from it, in his latest film which was screened on TG 4. Take care, and in the words of Tom Williams, “carry on my gallant comrades.” --Domer48 (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah in the NOV-DEC edition of History Ireland, there is an article you might be intrested in on the issue of Irish sovereignty. --Domer48 (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfAs
Saw your comment on Sony's page. Perhaps you should watch this report page, but don't get hooked on it because it is refreshed once an hour but you can keep in touch with all the current RfAs! Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ww; it would help Sony if folk who knew his funny ways knew he was standing! I'd nearly vote for Revolving Bugbear on the basis of his name alone - but then I can be a bit skittish at times :)(Sarah777 (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
A tag has been placed on 1695 in Ireland, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Exists as 1695; a separate article is not needed
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
Good to know the deletionists are wide awake! Thanks Ww. (I never imagined all these Lords and Ladys would be so handy; every one of them has to be born; do some stuff and die. All well recorded!) (Sarah777 (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
List of Massacres
Hi Sarah. I don't know whats going on in this article, but regarding this edit summary, you are are mistaken. I'm guessing you are referring to The Trouble's ArbCom. Firstly, I doubt this article would be covered in that decision, and secondly, the remedy is that a revert of an IP does not count among the single revert per weeks afforded to those under probation. It does not apply to WP:3RR, which will still be invoked for IP reversions. I just wanted to let you know before you find yourself blocked for 3RR without realizing it. Rockpocket03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, I answered you on my talk page and while I tend to agree with you about the content, I wholly agree with User:Rockpocket, you could get blocked if you rv more than three times in one day on this article (even an IP's edits) and moreover, if you steadily rv a couple of times a day for several days you could be blocked for edit warring. All the best to you! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very poor system; it means if I have to go away for say, a week - come back, make the change and then one of the tag-team simply reverts again in minutes. That is where I came in! The only way to combat that would be to form ones own tag-team - hardly a recipe for constructive editing. This collaborative effort by a group of editors has succeeded for THREE YEARS in keeping this article "safe for the West". What is being offered is no remedy at all. (Sarah777 (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
But it hasn't worked here, where the main consensus is that US troops don't do massacres in Iraq, period. And literally every trick in the book has ensured that nothing has been achieved in three years. WP:V can be managed and manipulated; that is what is happening here. -- Sarah777 (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The decision is here. Note that it is a remedy the lists the "terms of probation" specifically for those listed, and that they are limited to 1RR per week on articles related to the Troubles. As far as I am aware, you are not on probation from that case, so it doesn't apply to you, and this issue is not related to the Troubles or baronets, so it wouldn't apply even if you were.
However, it does raise an interesting point, that if an IP was editing appropriately on a Troubles related article and someone on probation reverted 4 times in 24hrs, they could possibly claim that ArbCom said "reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert" and thus are exempt from 3RR. I don't think this is what ArbCom intended, as the remedy was specifically to counter the named people from gaming the system by logging out, not to diminish the contributions of people who choose to edit anonymously. I guess if that happened ArbCom could clarify.
Regarding the content itself, I'm not quite sure the basis for it being removed, but it looks fine to me. Some of the sources, like Indymedia, are not exactly WP:RS but there are enough of them to make up for that, and alongside The Independent I don't think it is a big deal. Is the "tag-team" removing it on the basis that it is not accurately sourced? Rockpocket04:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the content looks ok to me too. Meantime the article name is rather PoV and the content is list/label-oriented, which draws PoV warriors to it from both sides. I mean, I think any war is a massacre from beginning to end. Either way though, the outcome of the edit warring is, the page is now protected from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article name is a disaster; more appropriate to the Guinness Book of Records than Wiki. How the top guys don't simply come down and say "this is not an appropriate article title for a serious encyclopedia" I do not know. At least myself and PB Shearer agreed on that but it failed proposals to merge or delete it. A handful of objecting editors = no consensus; thus this blot on Wiki's credibility remains. While I think Philip's perspective is skewed I honestly believe that even with the most neutral Admin possible it wouldn't work - because any consistent test of massacre will either open the floodgates to thousands of incidents or will eliminate everything. (Sarah777 (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Which makes the article meaningless (the article, not the events) and truth be told, the kind of readers you're worried about can be rather smart about spotting weak, listy articles like this one. Since it's under pp for a couple of weeks I won't watch it, let me know if I can help though. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I'm loathe got get involved in these sorts of articles for the very reasons you both state. I guess an RfC might be the way forward of you are really keen. Rockpocket05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He reduced it to semi-protect, which will keep that anon from editing, but I'm not sure that really resolves the issue. I mean, he is an admin and an interested party on the page's content. He says in his edit summary that he wants to see if the edit war can be resolved, and removed all of what he said you had identified as problem entries to the talk page for discussion there.
That's just borderline, in my opinion, to using admin powers to gain an advantage in a content dispute. In continuing to assume good faith, I won't yet restore the full protection, but I at the very least would like to have been consulted first.
We'll see how it goes from here. If the edit warring starts again, I will restore the full protection. I also think what Phillip did is pretty much a tacit admission that we need an article RFC — the bones of contention are clearly far deeper than the reliability of sources for one entry on the list. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sarah. I hope you don't mind that I've moved your Borris photo down the page a little. It's just that I find the wet-Sunday-but-still-constant-traffic-both-ways picture that I've added does sum up the "Borris-in-Ossory Experience" for so many who know it chiefly as a place for a pee... (apologies, Borrisonians!) -- Picapica (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; but don't get too Gavesque; there is Summer in Borris too; and remember - in the midlands it isn't raining 90% of the time! Just that you get some on average every second day! So I'd live with 10% of photos from Irish villages and towns showing rain - to be fair, like :)(Sarah777 (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sarah, you're edit-warring over there with the now-blocked User:Traditional unionist. Now, of all articles, this one definitely comes under the auspices of the Troubles ArbCom case. Please be careful here - you know the rules! - Alison❤22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to be placed on probation, Sarah? My message was a friendly note to ensure you are not, is all. Feel free to ignore it by all means ... - Alison❤22:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. But persistent edit-warring and disruption on "Troubles" articles certainly will get you on probation, buzzwords aside. Ask User:Aatomic1 - I put him on probation last month and it was endorsed by ArbCom when he disputed it, much to his dismay. I'm an equal opportunities admin, as well you know - Alison❤23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, TU and Padraig both state that you were edit-warring against talk page consensus. I just checked there and you were. Not good at all - Alison❤23:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not one to bow to the tyranny of numbers - I'm a good Wikipedian that way. If God says it I won't accept 2 edits in 6 months is warring! And where does Padraig say I'm warring....link....need to have a word with him. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sarah, the issue was being discussed on the article talk page, a discussion you were involved in, you shouldn't have edited the infobox whilst that discussion was ongoing, even if you are right.--Padraig (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sarah. Sorry I got to the party late. Since your request on my page, things seemed to have progressed somewhat. Its difficult to keep track exactly, so I'm just going to respond to your request. My apologies if what I am about to say has already been mentioned.
Firstly, I can't block TU for making more than one revert a week because he is not currently listed as being on probation per the Troubles ArbCom. The remedies were a bit of a mess at the end, and were not what I would have chosen, but we are at the mercy of ArbCom. My understanding of their decision was that only Vintagekits (talk·contribs) was placed on probation immediately (as a condition of his unblocking). All the other named participants and "any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles" may "be placed on Probation by any uninvolved administrator". This has since happened to LiberalViews (talk·contribs), MarkThomas (talk·contribs). In addition Princess Pea Face (talk·contribs) and Aatomic1 (talk·contribs) were placed under it for one month, which has since expired. So, all admins can do in the first instance is place editors under the probation.
So should TU be placed under the probation? Well, it takes two to edit-war, and you were also reverting. How about you both discuss the issues rather than revert over it? It seems to have died down now, but if this info-box warring continues, then I will protect the article for a while, thereby stopping anyone from reverting. Rockpocket03:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On mature reflection....
On the basis of the old "all out of step except Johnny" test (not applicable if all the those in step are from the same Army; but obviously that's not the case here) I wish to apologise to all involved for my bad-tempered behaviour; especially, Alison, Padraig (who was 100% correct about my 'pettiness' on the Ireland article, obviously) and TU (God this isn't easy!).
In mitigation (not defence) of my tantrum I can only say that I felt (and still do feel) that Domer was the victim of a bad call.
I will now self-impose a prohibition on myself and stay away from all Troubles-related articles (not including issues pre-1700) till 13:55 on January 15th for being such a twat and will resume my anger-management classes asap.
Sarah, it's not your day. Please stop edit-warring on the above page. You're actually re-inserting POV which was added by no less than three socking accounts of the one editor. Please stop now and discuss the matter on the talk page - Alison❤02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true though I wasn't aware of the number of socks I pointed out to one of them my suspicions. Aren't there strict rules against using socks like that? Anyway, I've added "Ireland" to my "avoid" list till 15 January. (Sarah777 (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yep. But when one Admin makes a bad call the rest are loath to quibble. Like the police I guess. I'm not a great fan of authority - as you maybe guessed! (Sarah777 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Quite why the American public entrusts its pensions to something with such a misleading set of of initials is beyond me, but maybe it was some sort of joke by someone in Washington. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol - you should try living in America for a while!! Anytime, "Have you discussed your IRA membership?" appears on TV or radio, my brain twitches! :) - Alison❤14:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rowan Gillepsie
Hi Sarah
This is the first time I've edited a wiki article, it was great fun, but I am complete beginner and you are clearly an expert! I was trying to figure out how to change that background title wiki put in with the lower case surname for ages. Thanks for your help! How did you do it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela Gardiner (talk • contribs) 11:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Sarah, guess what..I need your help! I noticed someone called Ww2censor has added a 'needs references and citations' tag to RG's page, so thought I'd try my hand at converting the embedded external links, to external refs and a proper refs section...looked up how to do it in guidelines and added loads of Refs, cited the official biog with page numbers etc and added them, and weblinks ...but Ww2censor who added the TAG says its still 'unsourced'...dont know what he means or what I'm meant to do to make it 'sourced' now? Got some lovely photo's for a Gallery too, awaiting permission from various photographers...can you explain why Ww2censor still thinks its unsourced?Pamela Gardiner (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pamela. I'm at a bit of a loss myself! Fifteen in-line refs in an article of that size seems pretty good to me. Maybe Ww will explain here the specific bits of information he reckons still need a reference. He watches this page like a hawk so we might get lucky! Don't worry too much the article is fine - he probably wants you to drive it to a B class :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sarah, he's removed the TAG now, and tells me the refs are 'a bit messy', guess that's because I've just hit them when I can, (full time teaching and freelance editing doesnt give me much free time, but I am enjoying this and think its all in a good cause! .. So I'll try my best to tidy them up. On the bright side, I got sent some fab photo's of RG's site specific work this week, four of them taken by the artist himself...I've just emailed the copyright holder to see if he'll give me permission to use them for a Gallery! Keep your fingers crossed. Maybe that will make Ww2censor happy...? You never know, it might drive the article into a B class...? I dont much about this stuff..novice...just keep reading the 'How to' guides...how do you become a member of Project Ireland?91.109.189.204 (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC) whoops ..wasnt signed in..Pam[reply]
Hope you like the mini gallery Sarah, that's my first gallery! Still waiting for a reply from Mr Gillespie about a some photo's he took...fingers crossed!Pamela Gardiner (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice - mind you I liked The Jubilant Man where he was - dramatic. When you get some more maybe put him back? And remember, no matter how much it looks like 5 will fit the gallery only lets you put 4 in a row. Sarah777 (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip! - I'll worry about how to make a new row when I've got five photos. I agree, about the jubilant man, I dont think he belongs in the gallery, he doesnt really have the required detail for a gallery pic, and is, as you say, more dramatic! I just didnt want to make a gallery with only one pic! So if the other pics I'm hoping for turn up in the wash, it's a deal, we'll move him back91.109.189.204 (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fabulous image of Pater and Ned, 1996.. at the top of your page! Can we put it in the gallery? Its Rowan's memorial to Irish working men, he was trying to put something back into the centre of the village that he thought it had lost.Pamela Gardiner (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re 'Pater and Ned' ..sandyford isnt really my territory, i'm just trying my hand like a novice...could put in a quote from Rowan's biog that's about Sandyford..but wasnt quite sure if that was the done thing! ..this wiki stuff is addictive!
on another note ..I was looking at the page on the Great Hunger ..Do you think it might benefit from a section entitled 'The Famine in Irish Literature'...?... I've just read Joseph O'Connor's The Star of the Sea (which is about the potato famine and life aboard a coffin ship) ..other people might know some fab literary references to Famine..? Pamela Gardiner (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:OC_HorseJockeyHurlingTeam037.jpg listed for deletion
Hey Sarah, I've outlined my plan for the colloquialisms on the Waterford Talk page. Let me know there if you have any problems with it (its prob easier if you make your thoughts known there as opposed to here or on my own talk page). Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, when you're done laughing, you may also wish to read this. When this gets filed, you may wish to voice your opinion there - Alison❤20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was being sarcastic. What is going to come of it? I tell you what I think. There will be editors jumping in to defend the actions, the discussion will be dragged down a number of blind alleys, it will be made to appear it is a content dispute and end up going no where. That I have lost faith in the policies and the process is born from experience. That I’ve had a checkuser done only today, because of an editor’s baseless allegation, for the second time. That a previous AN/I was ignored, two 3rr reports I filed were useless and two dubious blocks I received, have been very informative thanks. I've had every POV bandit on my case for weeks, and not one of you would step in and call a halt to it. So if I come across as a little bitter, well what do you expect? --Domer48 (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alison, I can see straight of that you have gone way beyond what I would have expected, or thought. Having checked the edit history of this editor I naturally became frustrated and angry. That they act with impunity left me feeling isolated and resentful. I would like to thank you on behalf of all the editors who have felt as I have, and for restoring our confidence in the system. That I now know my concerns were being listened to has done much than any outcome that may transpire. I would like to apologise unreservedly to both editors and Admin’s who have falling victim to my frustration as a result of any of this, thanks --Domer48 (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(from my talk page) : Domer, I'm only sorry I didn't get to this sooner but I was snowed under with CheckUser cases and didn't give it the attention it deserved. That was my mistake and it only prolonged your frustration. When I started looking into this in detail yesterday, I was shocked by what I found. You were right all along and I need to apologize for not dealing with it sooner - Alison❤10:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Golly gosh! Things suddenly moved quickly; I went for a couple of days into the hills to burn off the Christmas calories and clear my little head - I'll get back to this when I catch up on the mail. Sarah777 (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back
Hi Sarah, welcome back! I'm begining to think the is light at the end of the tunnel, and no one is more surprised than me. Regardless of any outcome, the fact that I was at least being listened to has reduced so much of the frustration and resentment. Thanks for your encouragement, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sarah! I'm Прон from Bulgarian Wikipedia. I'm writе 70 articles from irish town in Bulgarian Wikipedia. Please put your Image [Image:IMG Enfield.jpg] in Wikimedia Commons. (90.154.207.255 (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Ali, just logged on - I've uploaded the pic to Commons (Image:Enfield0940.jpg) - you can delete the other one; I'm not sure how to. Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah777. I just wanted to say that I hope I'm not being too tactless on the famine page. I don't try to be tactless, but perhaps I am sometimes excessively "straightforward". Hughsheehy (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, I just spotted this edit in which you linked to yet another of your many photos[2]. I have been wondering for some time whether there was any place in Ireland which had not been photographed by you for wikipedia, and how you managed it. I think I have now figured out the answer: like St. Patrick, who blessed so many wells that he would have needed a helicopter to complete the job, I think that you are actually more than one person. ;) Congratultions to you and your clones, and keep snapping away! —BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BHG! Apart from one significant other who travels about and will permit me to tell you his name is Eoghan - 100% come from my own well travelled Cannon and 90%+ are shot by yours truly! He still has his photographic training wheels on and in fact he was in Donegal last week, a place I haven't been in years and forgot to bring the camera [expletive deleted]. So the N15 must wait till who-knows-when - :) Sarah777 (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I got to know her when she was in Australia on holiday in the late 70's- hadnt realised she had died -still a bit stunned SatuSuro17:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated 1248 in Ireland, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1248 in Ireland and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah, I may have exaggerated very slightly with the "one of my relations was a scribe". Truth is, thanks to the loss of records during the Potato Famine, I'll probably never know. What I do know is that my family (now Dignan, but formerly O'Duignan and even O'Duibhgeannain) came from a small town only about three miles from Kilronan. There is a family legend of a connection with the bardic college, but - as I said - no records to show one way or the other. Grutness...wha?07:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Misquote
"part of the "lynch mob" (John on the R fiend page)"; I never said that; please redact and please be more careful. Thanks. --John (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deepest apologies John; it was indeed a misquote. The allegation/suggestion was made by two separate editors but not by you. A redacting I will go......(Sarah777 (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose Merging there is indeed a logic for having these cats separately - one refers to the whole island (ie including Northern Ireland), the other refers to the state of the Republic of Ireland only. To merge them means if you want to find out only about the Republic in one cat, you can't. I accept there is as yet no full separation of all cats in this way, but I have been trying to get them separated for some time. It's the right thing to do, so lets not do the wrong thing, just because we haven't got all cats right yet. Help us get all the other relevant cats separated instead.Ardfern (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Sarah, I replied on my talk page, but to be specific, the terms of the probation are..Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert. I hope you understand the bind I'm in with regards to using my admin powers on the article, especially why I can't edit it first. SirFozzie (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Sarah, How pronounce the first letter "CH" in the name irish town Charleville? Letter "E" in word "Charle" pronounce or not pronounce? (Прон) (90.154.207.255 (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
This is a toughie...I'm clueless on phonetic alphabets etc. The "Ch" is pronounced the same as it is in the word "chat" or "church". The 'e' is only slightly emphasised (depending on who is speaking!) as in Char-le-ville, just don't slow done when you are saying it - If you can make any sense of this you deserve a barnstar :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ceart go leor, b'fhéidir gur fearr leat "Samhain" a rá :-) Ach má tá tu chun trácht ar gach aon bhotún litrithe ar Wikipedia, bhoil, is dócha go mbeidh do dhóthain agat. JdeJ (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He he, nach fhíor é sin :) Dála an scéil, tá ana-mheas agam ar an obair atá sibh ag déanamh leis na bliana in Éireann. Ní raibh mé ro-chinnte nuair a chonaic mé é an chead uair, ach tá sibh ag déanamh ana-mhaith ar fad! JdeJ (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ! This pronounce was for this bulgarian article [3]. In my bulgarian geographic card for Eire this littles towns not. Good day ! Excuse me for my bad english.(Прон).(90.154.207.255 (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Halloween Edit
Hi Sarah, thanks for the note re my edit to the Halloween article back in Nov. I've checked and what I removed was text, not your picture. Hope you have more luck tracking down the culprit. --Dumbo1 (talk) 11:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah and thanks for your message. I've dropped them a message about 3rr; you need to be aware that a content dispute is not something I can exercise my admin tools over, although I agree with you in this case on the content dispute. Secondly I cannot indef block an IP address as they may change over time and another user could be innocently blocked. I note that they have not reverted since I warned at 18:12 on 20 January 2008, so that's good.
If they do revert again, feel free to let another admin know (not me as I have reverted another of their unhelpful contributions and it might look like I was trying to enforce "my" version) and they can be blocked. For future reference any user can place a 3rr warning, but no user is likely to be blocked for edit warring unless they continue after a specific warning.
Hi Sarah. I have re-protected the article, since compromise has clearly not been reached. I have asked any admin who is interested in the content of the article not to unprotect, instead to approach an uninvolved admin with the compromise. Its looking, to me, that now is the time to seek some type of dispute mediation process. Rockpocket01:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O Ireland's H; I wasn't the least bit annoyed - just being deeply philosophical :) And I thought you ran into a maelstrom of photo deletion tags and warnings before anyone bothered to welcome you! Sarah777 (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
