User talk:Sarah777

Hi — Welcome to my talk page; I am WATCHING — Please leave any messages below

Watching, Unblinkable

• I maintain an extensive WATCHLIST
• I hate VANDALS
• I simply steal USERBOXES
• I have read all the Wiki policies and RULES
• I have strong views on EVERYTHING
• In a previous life I was a TROLL
• In the next life I hope to be a DICTATOR
• I have a natural empathy with the UNDERDOG
• I find the imperious tone of some Wiki vets OFFENSIVE
• User:Earle Martin/Userboxes/watchlist-count

Vn-7 This user talk page has been vandalized 7 times. Sarah777 Talk of Rochefortbridge has been moved to the bottom of the page. Talking is Good * User:Bastun (Talk | History) * ‎User:Ben W Bell (Talk | History) * ‎User:DSRH (Talk | History) * ‎User:Djegan (Talk | History) * ‎User:Fenian Swine (Talk | History) * ‎User:Flowerpotman (Talk | History) * ‎User:Hollywood X (Talk | History) * ‎User:Jdorney (Talk | History) * ‎User:Konvicted-07 (Talk) * ‎User:MartinRobinson (Talk | History) * ‎User:Picapica (Talk | History) * ‎User:Red King (Talk | History) * ‎User:Sarah777 (Talk | History) * ‎User:Sony-youth (History) * ‎User:Taramoon (Talk | History) R710 road Hi there, I don't understand why you have removed the precision from the length of the R710 road in the 'R710 road' article. If a road section is 6.8km, why can't 6.8km be used instead of 7km? I understand that there is probably some kind of wikipedia policy at play here that I don't know about, but surely less granular information (when the information is available at a given accuracy) is a disimprovement? Could you please explain to me your rationale for reverting my changes? Merlante 12:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Distance precision: The reason I changed the km to the nearest round figure is that I have applied a template to all Irish roads articles to standardise the layout. Most articles contained only rounded km; people from UK/US constantly added miles using automatic converters. Thus a road was described as 25 km in the original article turned into "the road is 16.62 miles (25 km) long". Which, given the original figure was (as is common practice on NRA publications) a rounded km figure and the miles given completely meaningless "precision". Also, to say "the road is 8 km (5 mi) long" is much less cluttered than writing "the road is 8.5 km (5.31 mi)" - which gives no additional useful information; even assuming the original figure is correct; which it is unlikely to be. The 8.5km above is itself almost certainly rounded. Should we go to the nearest meter, and say the road is 8.495 km long? "surely less granular information (when the information is available at a given accuracy) is a disimprovement?" It could actually be an improvement; road plans are usually available to one tenth of a meter; thus in the example above using the granularity argument we could write that Template:Km to mi is better. Not for anyone who has to read it! (Sarah777 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)) British Isles Sarah, you really need to calm down. You're discussing content with British editors while persistently making offensive and irrelevant remarks (stating that the British are worse than the Nazis, and calling them the Brutish and so on) furthermore you're using the word "troll" when they rise to you bait. Edits like these [1], [2], [3] are uncivilised and have no place on Wikipedia. I, and probably others, have a lot of sympathy for your point of view but this really isn't an acceptable way to communicate it.--Lo2u (T • C) 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Lo2u; Firstly, I am calmness personified. It's the pushers of the imperial nomenclature who are getting upset - I have not once complained about their abusive language. Secondly, please read what I said; I said not that "the British are worse than the Nazis" but that Britain aka The British Empire is worse than the Third Reich. Simple statement of fact. That doesn't necessarily make the average Englishman today any worse than the average German circa 1939, does it? So Lo2u, if you want to help, please point out that their attempts to include Ireland in "The British Isles" is offensive. Thank you. (Sarah777 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)) It may be offensive but if the term exists and is in common use there is inevitably going to be an article on it and the only thing that would change that would be if it were to drop out of use. If there's documented evidence that the term causes offence (and there is) the article should say that, so I've no doubt it was a mistake to take out the references to controversy - and I'm sure they'll be put back in. Nevertheless, it would be very easy for you to explain your objections to the contents of the article without repeatedly and explicitly comparing Britain unfavourably with the Nazis. Please try to understand that whether it is your intention or not, people will find that very provocative. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Lo, how can I explain this inoffensively? I detest and object to the word "British" because the British Empire was an Empire worse than Nazi Germany. That is why I find trying to include Ireland in something called the "British Isles" so offensive. Whether you agree or not, whether you like it or not, whether it provokes some people or not, that is my position. If folk want to try and argue that the British Empire was not worse than the Third Reich; then that is something I will forcefully contest. What you ask is that I forsake FACT for the sake of politeness. No can do. I could completely ignore the issue of "Britishness" on Wiki, and would, if some editors were not trying to impose that name on my country which sacrificed a lot for freedom from "the British Empire" and the right to be NOT British - in any sense. (Sarah777 23:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)) I understand what you're saying, and I think I understood it before. You won't agree with me but I also think there are more diplomatic ways of saying the things you would want to say. "The term British Isles is offensive because the Britain is worse than the Nazis" isn't an argument that will win you any friends because you limit your support to those who agree with the second part - nobody else on the talk page as far as I can tell. More importantly, I've looked through the whole of that talk page (but haven't found time for the archives) and all I've really learnt is that you hate the terms "British" and "British Isles". What I'm wondering is what you're actually trying to do. Do you want a deletion of the page with redirect to either "Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom", a total deletion, a much shortened article saying the term's offensive (like this one) or some sort of drastic redefinition? And I really would be interested to know. --Lo2u (T • C) 23:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Lo, a deletion of the page with redirect to "Britain and Ireland" (the common usage in Ireland), would be non-POV and inoffensive. Then it wouldn't be necessary for me to offend millions by having to repeatedly explain WHY the term "British Isles" is offensive. Regards (Sarah777 09:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)) Lol, Squeaktroll? Please see Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" and also assumeing good faith. To call me a vandal isnt exactly an argument and my removal of POV cannot be classified as vandalism. Please, SqueakBox 01:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC) You may believe that the British Empire was more evil than Hitler's Nazism (though there are those who would argue this is justifying Nazism I dont believe justifying Nazism is your intention) but this is an extreme minority political belief and to insert that into the geographical encyclopedic article on the British Isles is not helpful in terms of creating a neutral encyclopedia. And to call me a vandal over such a content issue is just silly, SqueakBox!~ Dear Vandal, I appreciate the trollery in your suggestion that being honest about the British Empire justifies Nazism! But what I am doing is explaining WHY attempts to apply the term "British" to Ireland is offensive. this is a difficult task why one is addressing minds conditioned since infancy to imagine the Empire was some sort of benign accident. (Sarah777 08:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)) Dear Vandal! To whom do you refer? Did you read the WP article I sent re this word? FYI I was brought up to consider the BE benign but then, being a young rebel absolutely rejected that opinion. Now I am not so sure but think this dispute should be carried out in places other than the opening of British Isles. I've put British Empire on my watchlist, SqueakBox 17:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC) People have explained repeatedly why the term "Britain and Ireland" isn't appropriate so I'm not going to bother. However, you don't seem to be engaging in any sort of meaningful content dispute, instead you're warring on the talk pages. "Britain is worse than the Nazis" (or Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, Satan or whatever) is just an analogy, not a reason why Britain is bad. Even if it were true (and repeatedly inserting the work "fact" everywhere doesn't make it so) the Nazis have nothing to do with why you hate the British Empire and there's no need to mention them any more than there's reason to mention any of those other things. If you want to make a difference rather than score points on the talk page, the way to do that is to show that "Britain and Ireland" is an alternative to the current title. If you've decided that can't be done, I don't know why you're bothering to continue the discussion.--Lo2u (T • C) 12:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC) I am continuing the discussion because to refer to Ireland as part of the "British" Isles is offensive. I use the Nazi analogy to show how offensive; the very fact that you question the validity of the analogy is illustrative of the problem. "People have explained repeatedly why the term "Britain and Ireland" isn't appropriate"!!!! Nope, they have NOT!! They have convinced each other. Preaching to the converted. "Britain is worse than the Nazis" is just an analogy, not a reason why Britain is bad. Nope, an analogy isn't a REASON. But the British Empire was as evil as the Third Reich and spanned centuries (right up to Iraq today) - that is WHY the term is offensive. So, if you want to improve the article; give it a name that isn't grossly offensive to many of those living in Britain and Ireland. (Sarah777 13:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)) Sarah, as an outside observer, I find that your comments about Nazis, "British" cultural identity, etc., are unhelpful to any meaningful discussion regarding the article. Please keep your opinions about the behavior of the British Empire to the proper Wikipedia pages or to yourself. The article has already been clearly marked with the controversy about the naming of the islands, the majority of the world calls it the British Isles (Wikipedia is not central to one English speaking country), and the term "British Isles" is not offensive per se as the name is historical. Illuminatedwax 02:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Sarah, I wasn't saying that your discussion or use of the term "Nazis" was offensive, I was saying that it was irrelevant to the article as I saw it as an outside observer. I was responding to a complaint left in Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts, and I was merely trying to tell you to stay on-topic in the talk page of British Isles (in addition to adding my opinion on the matter). I don't think my comment was uncivil or incoherent; sorry if there was a misunderstanding. Addendum: when I said "keep your opinions on the proper Wikipedia page or to yourself" I was merely restating that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but that your opinions are very much welcome in the proper places. Sorry if that read as rude. Illuminatedwax 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Rochfortbridge Hello folks, I didn't spot this earlier. You should add comments at the end of the page rather than the top - it's where we expect to find them! I've moved them down. Regards (Sarah777 10:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)) I have made an edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochfortbridge as part of the actual history of the village. I have a problem that meybe you can help. every time i edit this page it is reverted or re-edited and it is all done by one user. that user has used several different usernames and used different IP addresses with the result that I am the one always banned as a vandal. if you have a spare few minutes just look back at this site and you will see that was I that expanded it firstly from a meger stub. then i set up my own wiki. and every time i enter my wiki as a link or undo vandalous edits to the site I created, I get scallded. when all is said and done, almost all of this sites content is my work but I get banned most often as a vandal. just look for yourself. I am Denisponeill - new user name EarlofBelvedere always the same IP address - thanks in advance - PS the site I lint to is http://rochfortbridge.wetpaint.com if you want to validate my authenticity - denisponeill@eircom.net Hello Denis, I'll have a look if you think I can help. I earlier deleted that [4] link because you shouldn't really put it in the infobox and when I tried it it appeared dead. Put it back in under "external links" if you wish. Regards (Sarah777 10:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)) Hi, I'm Wikidrone20000, I have been keeping an eye on the Rochfortbridge website and yes have reverted a good couple of times but this WAS due to vandalism. not just by the user above. I'm not pointing the finger but there are some about who have been just taking out other folks recolections and personal history and to them fact just for the sake of their own satisfaction. Check out with Pilotguy and others and they'll let you know what they have experienced on this site and why the user above had been temporarily and then extended blocked. There is a lot of mixed feelings and beliefs on Rochfortbridge and no doubt the user above has a lot of experience, HOWEVER, the issue arose when this user began taking out factual info and changing text to appear insulting to certain areas of society (It's all in the history). I have always tried to adjust the Rochfortbridge section with a balanced mind and welcome any inputs this user above chooses to add in, ONCE it is within the boundaries of respect. The user has experience but should remember that other people have different sources and info. The Reason why the wetpaint link was modified (Not deleted) was that www.Rochfortbridge.com is the locally recognised community website and the wetpaint.rochfortbridge.com website is more of a private one. Sincerely, --Wikidrone20000 10:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Hello Wikidrone; actually it is deleted now! I deleted it as it was in the wrong place and appeared "dead" when I tried to check it out. I'll read the history and get back to both - but this seems like I'm walking into a family affair! Regards (Sarah777 10:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)) Hi Sarah777, No it's not a family thing, more a clash of personalities and poor manners on the other half. Thanks for taking the time to read through the history. I was not trying to annoy him, just trying to make the representation of the town more accurate and balanced. Thanks again!--Wikidrone20000 21:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)  :) Hi Sarah777, you stopped your review of the page just a little too soon, the user Wikidrone 20000 was then using the name Thomas 999 or unsigned in edits then was banned as user Wikidrone 2000 so, added a zero on yet another account and started fresh. I have been using the same username and IP address since i expanded the wiki. at this point, due to edits, ALL the text in the article History section was written by me. continue from where you left off if you do get a chance. As with a lot of things in this world it is often the person that starts a good idea that gets shoved aside. Please continue from your last stop and then you will see the vandalism at work. OK. Tomorrow! I'm up to my neck in alligators in another row right now!!(Sarah777 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)) Sarah777, did you ever get to check to the end of the edits on rochfortbridge page? well, take a look at the new edits by Wikidrone2000, aka wikidrone20000, aka tomas999 plus multiple anonymous edits via multiple IP addresses. just look for yourself and then you'll see what I mean. granted I may have been as childish but not as vindictive, this chap even deleted a complete page that I created. (check Denisoneill contribs for christ church gaulstown) and removed my link from other sites (Belvedere) now he/she has added a lint to his/her website as a community memo board when in fact it is a link to the same websites guestbook, now I ask you, how can this editor call him/herself balanced. with a view as this person has, quote above "www.Rochfortbridge.com is the locally recognised community website and the wetpaint.rochfortbridge.com website is more of a private one" un quote, this editor has only one focus, to eliminate all other websites other than the websites linked to him/her and his/her activities. Denisoneill Apologies Denis...forgot all about it! Distracted by various bans etc. Will look into it tomorrow, regards (Sarah777 01:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)) Hi Sarah777, Sorry about this again but just to clear something up. I AM Wikidrone20000, I used to be Wikidrone2000 but forgot my password and hadn't set up an email address for retrieval. I was never tomas999 nor have I left messages from various IP addresses just one when I was away from my desk. I have never deleted a whole page from this guy or a link to belvedere. I am nothing to do with www.rochfortbridge.com although I hold it in higher regard than the wetpaint one. I rate his site quite highly and have no intention of upsetting anyone. Hope this clears things up and best of luck Denis, no intention was ever made to insult you, just keep the facts straight. Or straight as can be. --Wikidrone20000 09:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Rochfortbridge (2) Well folks, I followed this saga from the start to January 14th 2006 and stopped from exhaustion! Denis, with all due respect, you seem to have difficulty conforming to some necessary Wiki standards. “The following text posted by Denis O'Neill, Gaulstown. (Poet and playwrite of national acclaim). all information below is accurate and can be verified.” Remarks like that should never be placed in the body of an article; add to the comment when making a change or put in the Talk Page. “The town is also home to Christo Bradley” Only NOTABLE people can be mentioned; those who have a Wiki article about them or who have many hits on Google, for example. At the very least you should explain why someone is notable if his notability is contested. “The following text taken from the book "Earl of Belvedere" by Denis O'Neill, Gaulstown. (Poet and Playwright of national acclaim). all information below is accurate and can be verified by the author.” Again, this has no place in the body of the article. If you have written such a book it should be referenced; publisher, ISBN number etcetera. The interesting history which you posted extensively was deleted because it lacked any references. “can be verified by the author” is not a reference. You must cite published sources, preferably at the point in the text where the facts are given. “The oldest recorded family name still living in the parish is that of the O'Neills, formerly High Kings of all Ireland (for a world record breaking dynasty of over 900 years), the O'Neills in the parish can be traced back to Eoghan Ruadh O'Neill, who gave assistance to sir Richard Tyrrell during the battle of Tyrrellspass in 1597. of course the family name itself traces back to Millesius, son of an Egyptian Pharaoh who proclaimed his dominion over the land he called "the Isle of destiny" about 7000BC “ Again this was unreferenced and reads to me very like invention; all the more reason your edits are being reverted when you supply no acceptable references. A further concern: Denisoneill (Talk | contribs) at 14:07, January 10, 2007 – you removed wikify and cleanup tags Revision as of 01:16, January 12, 2007 – you removed very justified wikify tag Revision as of 01:29, January 14, 2007 - you removed equally appropriate cleanup tag By this stage I can only conclude that the banning was justified unless you give an undertaking to stop adding unreferenced “history” and removing tags. Regards (Sarah777 11:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)) Archiving I set you up an automagic archive. Each archive will be 100kb long, and then it will go to the next archive. The first archive page is User talk:Sarah777/Archive 1, and can grow untill it is a little longer than this page right now. Messages more than 1 month hold are being archived. Does that work? Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Stratford Answered here. ww2censor 14:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Stratford, also known as Stratford-on-Slaney, is a small village on the River Slaney in West Wicklow in Ireland. - 14:25, May 19, 2007 Ww2censor Indeed Ww! That is what I always knew it as - and I was going to call the article by that name till I noticed the sign; checking around I couldn't find much support for Stratford-on-Slaney online; so rather than have someone revert it I settled for Stratford. But I can personally attest that 20 years ago it was universally known as Stratford-on-Slaney in SW Wicklow. (Sarah777 13:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)) Remember that online is not the only source for such info. Try using a Gazetteer, if you can find one. I have the Gazetteer of Ireland published by the Government Publications office that I presume is still in Molesworth Street. My copy is the 1989 issue and also gives the Irish names, though maybe they have a new one since then. According to this web page a new edition should have been out in 2003. If they do have it, let me know. Also look here. FYI I used to live in West Wicklow! ww2censor 13:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the tip. And the link to An Post seems fairly definitive, doesn't it? My own location down on the farm was only a half dozen miles west of there! While the name was often shortened to "Stratford" in conversation (just as Newtownmountkennedy is spoken of mainly as 'Newtown' locally) - the full name was always understood to be Stratford-on-Slaney. You fancy changing the name? I think we have sufficient evidence. Regards (Sarah777 14:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)) Go ahead and move the page to the full name and chnage the tinro around to read: Stratford-on-Slaney', also known as Stratford but also make a new redirect page called Stratford on Slaney. Cheers ww2censor 14:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC) The deed is done.(Sarah777 15:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)) Image:IMG_R747eastwards5077w.jpg listed for deletion An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:IMG_R747eastwards5077w.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Another orphan.... File:IMG R747eastwards5077w.jpg ...DELETE(Sarah777 00:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)) Cram school From the article: "Cram schools (also known as crammers) are specialized schools that train their students to meet particular goals, most commonly to pass the entrance examinations of high schools or universities." Sounds to me like it fits the bill. Lapsed Pacifist 16:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC) I would consider it more of an informal term than slang. While they wouldn't use it themselves, I don't regard it as pejorative, and I can't think of a better description. Lapsed Pacifist 10:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Jane Davis, Daniel Barrett et al The following, sourced from [[5]] with/without additional internet sourced confirmation, are no longer extant on the relevant Wikipage while dead Welsh Guards continue to be listed. [6] [7] [8]. At that time the victims of the Birmingham pub bombings were listed [9]; I personally could not list one set of victims without listing the other. Aatomic1 11:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC) AVFC This user supports Aston Villa Grognardistic I have to ask, what does grognardistic mean? Dear User:1-555-confide, I have often wondered that myself! Haven't a clue; but you can call yerself one after you've done 2,000 edits...and you can give yourself a cute little medal! (Sarah777 22:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)) Thanks! Hi Sarah777, thanks for the words of support. Not intimidated by Bastun at all, but I did made a decision in the past not to be involved in a situation where personal attacks are involved. Although I have never been involved with Bastun but once, over some minor edit on Croke Park, there was a tendency there with him to take a hostile posture too. Also, I have witnessed some of his personal attacks with other editors. Otherwise I am not completely off the BI page.Gold♣heart 14:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Hi Gold - yes, that seems to be his style; he's at it again on the BI talkpage in relation to a proposed solution I had to the impossibility of getting agreement from the British editors on the issue. The The British Isles and Ireland. (Sarah777 15:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)) Yup, it's a term that is often used. My criticism of the BI page is that the other names, which are very often used, like The British Isles and Ireland, or Britain and Ireland are not even allowed a mention in the article. Also, much of the history, especially from medieval period onwards is pretty much af ork, so too is most of the geography section. There should be a para, near the top, dedicated to the alternate names. For some of those editors to be shouting pov is startling, and makes wonder is there light in the area at all. Gold♣heart 15:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC) It's very difficult to get through the British editors, for they outnumber the Irish editors by about 16/1, and that's one big failings of WP. Sony has a good record on the page, although I do not agree with him on everything. I am sure that if Ireland was bigger than Britain, then it would be a different story. Gold♣heart 00:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Sony WAS ok! But I'll find it hard to forgive that totally OTT attack. He was calling for me to be stoned! Even the British Editors (with one exception) didn't lose it like that. Regards (Sarah777 00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)) Ye, I agree with you there, it was a bit strong. I was surprised and I tried to dampen it. Maybe I did more harm than good. Bastun did set the tone of the page, and that's why I usually don't like hanging around editors with a tendency to be abusive. Otherwise I really do need a rest from this page, it gets very "mobish". Gold♣heart 00:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I have not been abusive. On one occasion, I accused Sarah of trolling. Please withdraw that remark. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Not clear (again) which of us you are addressing. (Sarah777 00:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)) Goldheart. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (reduce indent) I am sorry if my remark has upset you Bastun, but sometimes you do attack the editor, and not the content. There is no doubt that you will have a certain strength in numbers on the British Isles page, and it's a pretty safe place for you to be. I find most of the British editors very polite in their exchanges with other editors. I do notice that you have rowed with other editors in the recent past, I do suggest that your input to WP should be greater than it is, and best to keep to the issues. Gold♣heart 01:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Sarah, I am really sorry that you were blocked. There are a lot of hostile people on Wikipedia who live in hope of some sort of showdown with some editor or other. The whole affair has been very sordid for Wikipedia, from the personal attacks even until today. It must be realised that one is often dealing with very spiteful people on WP, and then the mob rule will swing into action. Remember, success is the greatest revenge. Happy editing in the future, and forget about the tiny people, because they are tiny. Gold♣heart 08:20, 30 May 2007 Thanks Gold - I fight my corner and move on; I never hold a grudge unless it's fun to do so!. There is only ONE editor on my list as a result of all this. Though I'm a bit annoyed with Ben also for closing the AfD so precipitously and driving me into 3RRsville; but Ben is basically a good guy. And thank you Gold for your support in my time of trial!(Sarah777 19:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)) Proposal: Variants of the abolished NI Flag in Template:Country data Northern Ireland Hi, you might want to voice your opinion in a proposal I made in Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland#Request for edit. As the discussion has been going on and the page is quite cluttered, here my proposal in short: Inclusion of variants in the Template:Country data Northern Ireland as follows: | flag alias-cgf = Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg still used by the CGF (Commonwealth Games Federation) | flag alias-patrick = Image:Saint Patrick's flag for Northern Ireland.svg | flag alias-map = Image:Alliance ni flag.png File:Alliance ni flag.png, which I find aesthetically more satisfying than | flag alias-union = Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg as the only official flag of NI The defenders of the abolished flag argue that this flag is still used in context with the Commonwealth Games. I think that the inclusions of variants is the first practical step in discontinuing the use of the abolished flag in articles about biographies and international organisations (like the european parties). AFAIK, a map tag is already in use in articles about NI geography; this map symbol was never intended to be used as an icon, and I think the usage of Image:Alliance ni flag.png looks better. I would welcome your input to this debate greatly. Kind regards, Dingo 05:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC) (currently anonymous) 3RR Sarah, you have breached the 3RR on Britain and Ireland. Whether you agree or disagree with the early closure of the AFD on The British Isles and Ireland, the fact is that it was closed. If you belive the closure was out of process, vandalism, or whatever, then WP:DRV is designed for precisely that purpose. Recreation of deleted articles is not permitted without going through DRV. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Britain and Ireland was NOT closed. It was repeatedly blanked, which is vandalism. there is no limit on reverting manifest vandalism. Are you seriously saying that if I were to delete the "British Isles" article or redirect it to "Mongolia" that it couldn't be reverted? The policies I've read say that vandalism is reversible. On occasion someone puts in "Jack Smith is the King of Tallaght" or whatever; and keeps putting it back maybe half a dozen times - I just keep reverting. That's what you do with vandalism. And, the deletion of The British Isles and Ireland was vandalism too. Follow the procedure; what are you all afraid of? (Sarah777 00:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)) You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. — Signaturebrendel 02:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Sarah777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: (1)gross, deliberate breach of WP:AFD policy and procedures by User:Ben W Bell whose deletion was vandalism; my reverts were of vandalism - I was fully prepared to abide by due process - there is no limit to the number of times vandalism can be reverted;(2)biased administration that fails to enforce the policy as laid down, User talk:SqueakBox continued re-inserting the vandalism and breached the 3RR yet no action taken; (3) hysterical abuse by User:sony-youth (which persists after the block) indicates gross prejudice and abusive language by several others and combined with their ignoring of due process as laid out by Wiki policy means this whole thing was effectively a kangaroo court; no rules followed - except be myself, who was blocked.(Sarah777 07:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)) Decline reason: reason —No. Stop trolling and wait out your block. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. That template doesn't look right but I don't know how to fix it (Sarah777 07:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)) Sarah, this was a content dispute and SqueakBox's edits were not vandalism. Just two points of view collided, and edit war erupted instead of peaceful discussion. Revert wars aren't helpful, they disrupt the project, that's why we treat such violations so strictly. Please calm down and try not to take this situation personally. When your block expires, please resort to dispute resolution instead of simply undoing other users' edits. MaxSem 07:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Max, I'm perfectly cool...in fact more so than most of my assailants. Please read the tone and content of the reaction after I created the new article. Squeak DID breach the 3RR - why no action? (He also deleted my notes on his and the article talkpages pointing that out). And it explicitly states that I am allowed to request a lift of the block - which is what I'm doing! I wonder if I undertook to never mention/edit/think of the B***ish Isles again for six months would that get me unblocked? (Sarah777 07:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)) OK, now I'm not so cool. How can I TROLL when I'm blocked. So I assume trolling is what some admin (?) has chosen to call my request for an unblock. Obviously rationality isn't a requirement for adminship. (Sarah777 07:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)) So, back again. Re-reading the reply to my reasoned request for an unblock I spot the Luggala connection. Vindictiveness, pure and simple. The REASON given? "Stop trolling and wait out your block". I got news for you User:Swatjester - that isn't a REASON, that's an abusive personal attack. When I get unblocked YOU are first on my list of complaints. (Sarah777 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)) A Modest Proposal I have decided to start my campaign to be an administrator. I, too, want to be able to make biased daft arbitrary decisions and feel the POWER that comes from blocking folk. God, it must FEEL SO GOOD. Imagine, I'm some inadequate little runt with the mental capacity of a BNP supporter and yet I don't have to defend my position - I can just BLOCK. F** you - I've got the BIG GUN, he he he! So; where do I apply? (Sarah777 19:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)) I'll support you, you seem feisty ;)--Barryob Vigeur de dessus 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks Barry. I'd like to award you a BARNSTAR for...something - but this goddamn block.....(Sarah777 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)) RE: The British Isles and Ireland - Naming Dispute Hi there Sarah! I agree with your estimation that Irish and British opinions are often irreconcilable in these sorts of areas. It seems like we've seen quite a few examples of this over the past few months, hehe. With regards to your suggested article, you may want to check out the British Isles naming dispute article, which appears to be relevant here. If you're feeling harassed by other users, I would be more than happy to talk to these fellows and ask them to stop. I apologise for the lack of immediate help, but if you could point me in a specific direction, I would certainly be up for providing a fresh set of eyes on a subject gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks G! But its too late; my time in purgatory is nearly up. My main beef is that folk who endlessly cite Wiki-rules at me chose to completely ignore them themselves and simply abuse their power by blocking out the alternative view. Other parties to this dispute breached 3RR and are now cowering in the wings, unpunished. On a scale of 1 to 10; what do you reckon my chances of making an administrator would be? (My main platform would be, basically, revenge - there are at least half a dozen on my permanent block list!) (Sarah777 22:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)) The Celtic Isles Hey. I would love to help but I have already tried and it's like to talking to a bunch of auld conservative a***holes. They don't listen to reason and are clearly bitter over the collapse of their empire. The word British in front of the isles gives them some form of perculiar sense of being better than Ireland, something the British have always believed but has of course never been true. See here and to a lesser extent here. Sorry.--Play Brian Moore 12:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Yes, you put it rather well Mr Swine. I doubt if anyway here could disagree with you. (Sarah777 14:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)) Cheers. I know they watch people like us but he seemed like a nice enough user. I'm only a twat to those who bring up name debates or act the tw*t to me.--Play Brian Moore 00:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Welcome Nice to see you back. The challenge on my talk is still unmet. See, most of the probs are in peoples minds, and when asked to back up the rhetoric, there is no response. Thanks for support. Gold♥ 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Ok, so you used to be a troll? Why aren't you one anymore? I'm curious about the transition. My guess is this is not uncommon here. Well, I wasn't a troll on Wiki! (Despite the allegations) I find this place is more productive than messing around on newspaper websites. And I agree, just look at the Admins here; some are struggling to stop themselves descending into bouts of trollery. The transition? I guess like vandalism - while most of it is mindless bilge - some can be very witty the FIRST time you come across it. After 6 months of zapping it I find it ALL becomes tiresome. Like hearing the same joke over and over. (Sarah777 07:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)) Very interesting. I happen to find clever trolling amusing. I also think wikipedia, in its current form, is doomed to failure. (An uncitable encyclopedia?) Anyway, your notion that the line between editing and trolling is a fine one is surely true. Many of the editors here seem to release anger by abusing their privileges, given they generally can't troll anymore. (Though I'm sure some still do anonymously.) Well, while I admit things like "before the introduction of the potato, a period when most people had very small ears, the main source of nutrition was...." can be amusing, on the other hand trolling becomes pure vandalism when it is constantly repeated. Example from memory is the Phibsboro article, when some clever stuff about a "Pap Gegerty" was inserted, but after the 20th insertion it became VERY tiresome. As for Wiki, the uncitability is something I'd agree with. If you google anything (eg British Isles, my favourite political phrase), the first three returns are Wiki; you only get a proper definition in the first non-Wiki return! If Wiki could cite itself, you'd have to go to page 10 before you got an alternative view. In this case I'd argue that Wiki is actually actively restoring a term that was falling out of general use outside of Britain. This is akin to the Star Trek folks breaking their prime directive and messing about with the evolution of a planet. Will Wiki survive - I think so; but as one of many similar Wikis. For example, thinking about the BI conundrum it struck me that (barring time and resources) there is nothing to stop someone lifting the entire body of Wiki-work relating to Ireland and using it to create an Irish Wiki which is not beset by the editorial prejudices of another country. The Irish "Manual of Style" could do with a major re-write! But it won't get one here. Now a question to you; (firstly I'd like to assure anyone who happens to read this that you are not me, Eoghan (can't write!) or anyone associated with me doing a bit of trolling) - so who are YOU?? Are you an Admin; a regular contributor - I'd guess yes! Regards (Sarah777 08:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)) Thanks for the detailed response! The BI issue is so emotionally loaded that the best an encyclopedia could hope to do is document rather than settle the controversy. (Funny, the article on Hiberno-English is reasonably uncontroversial. I guess nobody feels like coming to blows over linguistic distinctions at the moment.) And for the record, I have no prior association with you. I can't remember how I happened upon your user page, but it caught my attention. As for me, I'm nobody important. I did my share of "serious" financial and textual contributions here once upon a time, but have long since given upon wikipedia as a serious enterprise. This feeling was particularly exacerbated by seeing well my considered additions bowdlerized by clueless editors and admins, even though I have superb, world-class academic credentials in my area of expertise. Now, I'm a humble troublemaker for the most part, although I'll correct egregious errors here and there simply because I must. In my opinion, the downfall of wikipedia will surely be its combination of anonymous editing, lying contributors, and admins who wantonly abuse their positions. (I see you've experienced the latter of these recently. My sympathies.) Re: British Isles template Hi Sarah {{British Isles}} is a navigational template - you can find out more about the purpose of such templates at WP:NAV. In response to my message to Sony (we all have the same aim - improving Wikipedia and ensuring that articles are written from a neutral point of view.) you said Unfortunately, that is simply not true! It is blindingly obvious that the majority of British editors have a completely different take on this issue than the majority of Irish editors. Now, while I agree that British and Irish editors may have different viewpoints about the name of the British Isles, I believe that the majority, if not all, of (non vandal) editors share the aim I stated. I don't see why nationality would make any difference to that, and ask you again to assume good faith about other editors on the project. you even caught a certain editor who you'd assumed supported your view confessing that he didn't really - not at all. I knew what Sony's views were. He's a very good editor and supports the principles behind Wikipedia, and abides by policy. I wasn't surprised at his viewpoint, I was surprised at his apparent "them and us" attitude - something that turned out to be a misunderstanding. Sony is a great example of someone who can state his case, disagree with other editors, and at the same time remain civil. You would do well to follow that example. So this article CANNOT be written without a POV. I strongly disagree with that. WP:NPOV explains very well how to deal with different points of view in an article, and I've seen it work several times over on controversial articles in Wikipedia. Provided that all editors involved abide by policy and accept it when consensus goes against them, a neutral article is easily achievable. All we have now is the imposition of dictat by the majority, NOT npov. No. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is a meritocracy. Several changes to the BI article have been made through discussion and consensus, where the ideas that have been put forward are good and explained well. If a really good, infallible argument was put forward as to why the article should be given a different name, one that nobody could argue against, then the name would be changed. But so far the only argument I've seen you come up with is that you personally find the term "British" offensive in some way. To change the article on that basis alone would mean Wikipedia endorsing your point of view over all others (a clear breach of WP:NPOV), Wikipedia being censored to avoid causing offence (a clear breach of WP:NOT#CENSOR), Wikipedia allowing you to effectively own the article (a clear breach of WP:OWN), it would cause confusion for a lot of readers who would expect to find the article under it's most popular English name (a breach of WP:NAME) - I could go on, but surely that's enough. And now I read you in the template page saying (paraphrase) "the Islands are called the British Isles on Wiki and we have a strict policy which says we push that into every article regardless of who we offend." That attitude is what is causing the endless cycle of rows about this issue. As I believe I said to you before, if you don't like Wikipedia policy, feel free to try and get it changed. Guidance on how to do that is available at WP:POLICY. But moaning about the policies you don't like, or (worse) breaching them or gaming the system to circumvent them, is going to achieve nothing. Wikipedia is a collaboration, that means we all have to give and take a bit. Taking a firm, unmovable line is not going to help anybody. If you're desperate to write an article that illustrates your point of view and ignores all others, or that shows how you think things should be as opposed to how they really are, there are other places you can do that. Hope this helps, Waggers 07:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Not really much help here! I strongly disagree with you that the BI article is NPOV; it is being forced by the simple fact that British editors heavily outnumber Irish ones; when the going gets heated in that debate the British POV prevails by weight of numbers. Simple as that. And I don't want a PERSONAL article; I want a article that respects the Irish view of our own geography. Nothing I have heard comes near to convincing me that most British editors even understand this issue. Please don't preach. The key issue is not that I personally object to Ireland being described as a "British Isle" - it is that the the current article is manifestly (British) POV. The determination to prevent an alternative article reflecting a more balanced viewpoint which I have just seen is illustrative of the problem. Finally, as regards Sony adhering to civil - check out the endless stream of accusations he has directed and you may appreciate that I cannot agree with you on that either! (Sarah777 10:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)) Again, I need specific examples. In what way is the BI article biassed? Geography is geography - personal opinion doesn't come into it. Politics and personal opinion can't change the fact that the island of Ireland is located within the group of islands popularly called the British Isles. Is there anything in the article, other than the name, that you think is not described from a neutral point of view? Waggers 11:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Just the name. Which is not only "not popular" but is offensive and virtually unused in the RoI. Unused because it is offensive. Offensive because it is NOT a neutral geographical name but pure 100% POV. The group of islands is Britain and Ireland, as commonly known; or The British Islands and Ireland, if you want to be technically correct. (Sarah777 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)) Personal attacks Excuse me Waggers, your views would have more credibility and carry more weight if I had evidence of any attempt by you to chastise those making personal attacks on me. The Administrator in question made a very unprofessional response to my "unblock" request and retorted with a personal attack. Are you going to take his behaviour to task? (A specific reply to this would be appreciated). (Sarah777 09:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)) OK. Firstly, calling someone brain-dead when they're clearly not is a personal attack. Asking someone to stop trolling when they have indeed been trolling may not be pleasant but I don't think it really falls into WP:ATTACK - it's a description of your edits, not yourself personally. If you read the Edit Warring section of WP:TROLL, I hope you'll agree that your recent behaviour fits the bill. Secondly, the admin himself responded to you here this morning and quite rightly pointed you to WP:AN/I. As an individual administrator I can't take any action against him unless your complaint goes through the proper channels, so that my admin colleagues can get involved and reach consensus. If you still feel that the admin in question's actions were wrong and need addressing, please do report it to WP:AN/I - that's what it's there for. Waggers 09:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Forgot to mention - if you feel that WP:AN/I is a step too far but still feel there's been a breach of etiquette, WP:WQA may be the place to go. Waggers 09:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Sarah, at no time have I claimed to be without prejudice, and I certainly do have my own viewpoints. But at the same time I respect the policies of this project, and that includes putting my own opinions aside in order to strive for neutrality. I don't make formal complaints and have never sought to get anyone debarred/blocked; preferring to deal with them myself. - perhaps this is the reason why there's so much hot air around. I wouldn't say my approach is excessively legalistic, but the policies of this project have been thought out and debated over a long period of time and are there for a very good reason. Most of the time, a purely common sense approach is all that's needed - but in times of conflict, that's when we should turn to the policies and guidelines that are there to help us all. As I said before, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If "preferring to deal with them myself" means alienating the rest of the Wikipedia community from an issue, I strongly recommend against it. There are plenty of Wikipedia users who are willing to help out with issues like this, I suggest you allow them to help you when you need assistance rather than acting like a lone crusader. As I said to sony-youth, we're all on the same side. Waggers 10:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC) NEUTRALITYThis user is anti-Wikianglocentricanarianism Deansgrange Hi Sarah, I wasn't quite sure if it was a better format for the image. And I live within a couple of miles from the location, see it every day. I really got a put-off from the BI talk page. When one can't argue the facts with the PAs being generated, it doesn't help with the accord. It's probably not always intentional, but editors should always address the issues. I'll stay out of it for a few more days, and have a look again. Gold♥ 12:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks Sarah, never on the darn thing, think I's a foreigner! Gold♥ 21:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Languages Dear Sarah, I don't see why the title English language should be used, given that the title for this article is 'Languages'. As regards 'Irish Language', I prefer the more accurate term 'Irish Gaelic' as it more accurately represents the term 'Gaeilge na hÉireann' and reminds one that it is not just confined to the island of Ireland. "Irish" is the almost universally used term for the language in the Irish context. I guess your reason for removing "language" after the word English is sensible. (Sarah777 21:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)) Dear Sarah, I don't see why the title English language should be used, given that the title for this article is 'Languages'. As regards 'Irish Language', I prefer the more accurate term 'Irish Gaelic' as it more accurately represents the term 'Gaeilge na hÉireann' and reminds one that it is not just confined to the island of Ireland. "Irish" is the almost universally used term for the language in the Irish context. I guess your reason for removing "language" after the word English is sensible. (Sarah777 21:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)) RE: "Irish" is the almost universally used term for the language in the Irish context. This use is relatively modern. It is noteworthy that the organization which did most to 'save' the language was called 'The Gaelic League' not the 'Irish Language League'. My own mother ( she was born of Gaelic speaking parents, in Fintown, Co. Donegal) always referred to the language as 'The Gaelic' not 'Irish'. The use of the definite article (the) before the noun is a feature of the language and was used both in Scotland and Ireland by native speakers or those who had parents who were native speakers. That the term 'Irish' is promoted as the best fit is not surprising, given the fact that the Irish Government has long been in favour of this term, indeed it has proclaimed the term 'Gaelic' as pejorative. This situation is not ( unfortunately) unique. We are offered 'Spanish' as a subject at school, however the name 'castellano' is widely used for the language as a whole in Latin America. Some Spanish speakers consider castellano a generic term with no political or ideological links, much as "Spanish" is in English. The reasoning behind the decision of the Irish state ( to use of 'Irish' and not 'Gaelic') can be better understood if one takes the political posturing and nationalist rhetoric of the times into consideration. Revivalists who associated the language with nationalism preferred to call the language ‘Irish’ in order to give it a national image (political / ideological links). That some Protestants have been 'turned off' by this move is of course a sad reflection of the lack of political maturity of our leaders, who have come in the main from English speaking backgrounds. In English, the term Gaelic applies to both Scottish and Irish Gaelic, and this may sometimes lead to confusion when the context is not clear. It is more sensible therefore to make such (rare) instances clear, rather than using a politically loaded term! This can be done easily by using 'Irish Gaelic' and not simply Irish. Let us copy the people in Scotland, where 'Gaelic' or 'the Gaelic' is universally used and where 'Scottish Gaelic' is usually used when confusion with its Irish Gaelic sister may cause confusion. Eog1916 02:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Surely how we got here is simply historical? (As I have been told over and over by anti-Nationalists/British when discussing the title "British Isles"). The fact is "Irish" is the commonly used term in Ireland and Wiki seeks to reflect what IS rather than what might be correct. Also, given that the history of colonialism and attempts to wipe out Gaelic culture have been two sides of the same coin; it is hardly fair to criticise nationalists for making the connection!(Sarah777 03:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)) NEUTRALITYThis user is anti-Wikianglocentricanarianism last and only warning Personal attacks (as noted by that user above) are not above. Removing trolling is not vandalism, do not characterize it as such. I removed your comments on my talk page, I do not want you further on there. Do not revert my removal. You're rapidly wearing down my patience. Keep it up again and you will be blocked. If you want to reply to this, do it here, NOT on my talk page. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC) I was not unclear about this. You have been blocked for 48 hours for harassment. I suggest you stop it. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Sarah777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: The blocking editor has a history of antagonism towards me and blocked due to, in his own words, a lack of patience. The blocking Admin, User:Swatjester has made no reasonable attempt to explain his actions other than to issue threats of further blocks to end the "debate". The "harassment" charge came about because I asked him to explain his incivility; he deleted the question, I reverted it, he wrote abusively and threateningly on my page and I replied on his page. Then he blocks me for harassment for 48 hours. I request this block be lifted immediately so that I can take a complaint against this Administrator; the ONLY issue here is his view of what I said about HIM. I will undertake to have no further direct communication with this Administrator but to take this case to arbitration immediately Decline reason: Given these edits [10] [11] [12], and even shoving comments into people's faces, I find it difficult to see how it is not harassment. — Kurykh 03:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. User:Kurykh, all you have done is extracted my comments from a two-sided argument and declared questions asked as harassment without any reference to the behavior of the Admin in question or the tone of HIS threats and remarks. Do Admins have an entitlement to forelock tugging that folk who can't ease their "impatience" by blocking their opponents don't have? Could you cite the policy that says Admins sense of their own self-importance must be respected, regardless of how they behave? It is some state of affairs when some Admin can block you for asking him to explain an earlier bout of unacceptable rude behaviour on the basis of on the basis of the victims rude behaviour. So i ask you AGAIN to lift the block so we can let arbitration decide whether two different standards of politeness apply to Admins and non-Admins. (Sarah777 03:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)) I was not referring to the questions themselves, but the method you used to ask those questions. —Kurykh 03:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC) What do you mean, "the method"! I typed them in and clicked on "save page"! Is there some other way of doing it?!!! (Sarah777 03:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)) Ok, maybe I should be clearer. You were being way too confrontational in asking your questions. If you really want your questions answered, then getting into their faces repeatedly is definitely not the way to do it. —Kurykh 03:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC) But that is the very kernel of my point; my tone, especially when it is merely reflecting their tone, should have no bearing on a block/unblock decision - what we have is two people arguing, both regarding the other as impolite, and one can simply use a 48 hour block to silence the other! That is totally outrageous...it's not like I actually am a troll the Admin accused me of; I have a substantial editing record. And now I want to take up this case in a forum where all these issues can be aired, while I get on with my normal work here. But I can't do that while there is what I believe is a vindictive block, an abuse of power, in place. (Sarah777 04:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)) In fact, the very notion that an Admin can block someone he is having an argument with is bizarre; like being prosecution, Judge and executioner. At the very least he should have to refer a blocking based on a personal dispute to a third party. (Sarah777 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)) As I see it, there are a few factors in play here: first, the original 3RR block for edits made to "Britain and Ireland" (see history) second, SWATjester's decline to unblock Sarah third, Sarah's attempt to to get SWATjester to apologize There were, unfortunately, several failures by multiple editors: first, the the regrettable mistake upon Sarah's part to identify SqueakBox's edit as "vandalism" (remember, no good faith edit is vandalism, and SqueakBox has been editing long enough for a lot of good faith to be assumed) second, Sarah's unfortunate request to be unblocked while making a lot of accusations in the process third, SWATjester's regrettable decline of Sarah's unblock request which stated, "reason —No. Stop trolling and wait out your block" fourth, Sarah's repeated and confrontational attempts to get SWATjester to apologize or admit some wrongdoing fifth, SWATjester's failure to recognize the damaging effects of referring to Sarah as a troll when she is clearly not "[deliberately] and [intentionally attempting] to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia." That said, I don't think that Sarah's conduct on SWATjester's talk page should have resulted in a 48-hour block, and it is regrettable that SWATjester himself blocked as opposed to starting a topic at WP:ANI and getting consensus for such an action. Despite this concern, Sarah, you must recognize that, whether or not it is "intentional and deliberate", you are disrupting the usability of Wikipedia for at least the editors involved in the content dispute at "Britain and Ireland" and for administrators involved in the blocking process. That said, neither editors nor administrators are perfect, as I expect you are keenly aware of in interaction with them thus far. What did you expect SWATjester to do? Sit by while you are implicitly accusing him of being a "biased administrator", an indulging administrator, and a vandal? You can expect no one to take such verbal abuse, not even the actual vandals. The conduct by both editors and administrators here has, unfortunately, been regrettable. Swatjester, Sarah, do you both recognize this? Can we agree to unblocking on the condition that you both drop the current issue? --Iamunknown 04:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Well, I rarely abuse actual vandals; but when faced with an Admin simply hiding behind his power and threatening (subsequently carried out) more blocks as his response, I struggle with civility. One expects high standards from Admins; all I see is excuses. My original mistake, since fully admitted, was to commit 3RR as described - and I've no problem with that block (or the original blocking administrator, at least not since I reconstructed the sequence of events), as the blocker had no way of reading my mind. But Squeak did actually breach 3RR with no sanction, there was a questionable closing of an AfD process that I was unaware of, so I thought my case deserved more than a dismissive 'go away troll'. While I guess I'm steaming a bit right now I will agree to forget that whole series of incidents that started with my 3RR, not drag the issue up at arbitration and even forgive Sony.(Sarah777 05:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)) Okay.  :-) I'll go over to the administrators' noticeboard and see what I can do. --Iamunknown 05:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC) I am unblocking you now, conditional on you not returning to my talk page. If you have any discussion to make, it can be done here. However, I encourage you to just drop it now that you are unblocked. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Well, that's not exactly gracious, is it? What "record" do you refer to, in your reply to Unknown? And by what power can you dictate, at pain of blocking, that all discussion of this must be on MY talkpage? I wish to thank User talk:Iamunknown. (Sarah777 05:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)) Anonymous editing Sarah, you have a great editing record, and it's nice to see there are good people on wp too. Justice, generally, is not a big attribute of wp, but expediency is. WP wouldn't need so many admins if it introduced "account only" editing, and I believe that this is a real problem setting into the project. The quality of procedure is being diluted and compromised and unless wp pulls up its socks on these matters, everyone will be the loser. Cheers! Gold♥ 13:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Hi Gold. I would certainly agree with 'account only' editing. There is a classic example of "trolling" in the Shankill, Dublin article. An anonymous contributor whose record appears to suggest that he/she only exists to change a few lines in the Shankill article is making sterling efforts to provoke a reaction from me. (In my view this is almost certainly some editor, possibly even a name known to us, trolling - it could even be an administrator waiting to pounce on any slip!). But with unaccountable editing we will never know. Regards (Sarah777 21:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)) Hi Sarah, here is another article that received a load of pov today, its Donegal fiddle tradition. Basically, the edits were swiped from a Scottish based website on the internet, to give the article a povish slant. Unfortunately I haven't read the reference books indicated at the bottom, and I doubt if today's editor has either. So I can't really edit it back to a balanced article, even though I have read some different sources on the subject. Yesterday it was the Great Irish Warpipes that got a similar hammering of the same pov style editing. I'll get some books from the library. There are about at least a dozen more articles that need some balanced input, just to get them right. These battle-grounds will go on forever on the WP. Gold♥ 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Reply I'm sorry to say this, but I really don't know how to upload images (I'm not the image kind of guy). I only delete the local image once they have been properly uploaded. So I apologize again if I'm not of much help. —Kurykh 01:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Sarah, I saw Kurykh's reply to your talk page, and thought I'd offer my opinion. Images uploaded to Wikipedia cannot (currently) be transferred automatically to Commons; they must be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. In the case of Image:IMG BlackwaterBridge3720rz.jpg (which you uploaded here), for example, User:Finnrind uploaded the image, complete with the file history and credit to you as the photographer, to Commons. If you want to upload your images to Commons, you will need to create a separate account there and upload them manually (at least until single user login is implemented). Hope this helps! Cheers, Iamunknown 01:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks...but how did he upload them from the the Wiki page to Commons, as I'm assuming he hasn't got the original file on my computer...or else Big Brother is watching me even closer than I feared! (Sarah777 01:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)) In the case of Image:IMG BlackwaterBridge3720rz.jpg, one can easily get the image by following this link (which is provided with the text "Full resolution" beneath the image on the image description page). I assume the uploader at Commons saw your photograph, wanted to use it on a project other than the English-language Wikipedia, uploaded it, tagged the one here for deletion (as a duplicate), and voilà! that is where we are now. --Iamunknown 01:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Well, I have tried and tried but I still can't upload a file from en:Wiki to Commons. Call me stoopid I guess...everyone else does!! (Sarah777 13:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)) No, the upload process isn't very user-friendly, and you are not alone in finding issue with it. Have you signed up for an account at Commons? Just follow this link. --Iamunknown 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Alas! I have an account at Commons. It's trying to following the 10 steps for uploading that I get stuck...it always tells me my target file doesn't exist. (Sarah777 09:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)) Great Irish Famine Please -let's not revert-war over this. The discussion is going fairly well to-date & we should probably keep at it - Alison ☺ 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Famine Sarah - can you please follow proper procedures? First, the result of any discussion and vote will be a move (or not); not a redirect. Second - it is not a case of WP:SNOW. The article has been in existence for ages, has many editors, active discussion, and now an active debate on a move (again, not a redirect). The note about the proposed move only went up within the last 24 hours and many therefore won't have seen it. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, a copy/paste move is so not the way to do it, as the edit history gets completely messed up - Alison ☺ 23:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Not revert warring - this is a clear cut case; it wasn't a "potato famine". Let's just change it. Only Sony disagreed. I'm not to keen on the idea of different rules for different cases which ALWAYS appear to favour the holocaust deniers like Sony. (Sarah777 23:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)) 1641 Ok, well, first conspirators is not a value laden word. They were a small group of men who planned a quick siezure of power. Conspirators describes them precisely. In any case, it is not a judgment on them one way or the other. Secondly, you have just gone through the text inserting your own pov. For example, you have deleted the sentence explaining the extent to which the protestant community could be considered to have been the victim of a 'genocide', as we would call it today, ora 'general massacre' as they referred to it at the time. Actually, as the text explains, this was not really the case. You have also altered a load of other small things, for example, deleting the reference to the over-reaction of the Lord Justice in Dublin Castle on the outbreak of the rebellion. This is a very important point that was stressed in all the contemporary accounts of the outbreak of the rebellion. The point here is that a small faction went into rebellion initially, the remainder of the catholic landed class joined it because they were afraid of the authorities reaction. But on the point of another sentence you have altered, the government in Dublin Castle never instituted a system of collective punishment. The point here was that Catholics were afraid that this was going to happen. The whole situation was driven by mutal and reinforcing paranoia on all sides. Thirdly you have insterted a sentence on 'Cromwell's genocidal march across the country'. Without getting into what is a complicated debate, (have a look at the talk page at Cromwellian conquest of Ireland) this is not informed or objective. I don't want to be rude, but have you actually studied this period in Irish history? There is no point in having a 20th century pov war over a 17th century event. The pov just won't fit and it's a waste of everybody's time. Jdorney 23:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC) "Conspirators", in modern English, is manifestly pejorative as currently used, "Organisers" is a neutral technical term. In modern parlance Cromwell's actions were genocidal. "protestant community" in the context of 1640 is PC nonsense; they were colonial settlers, in modern parlance - ethnic cleansers. You can claim that ethnic cleansing, like slavery, was not considered a big deal in 1640; that DOES NOT change what it is. The Penal Laws WERE collective punishment; as were the massacre of civilians in various towns. Maybe standard practice throughout the world in 1640; still collective punishment in modern English. "by mutal and reinforcing paranoia on all sides" - when one side is invading the territory of another that is pretty inevitable; hardly needs stating! "Have you actually studied this period in Irish history?" Most certainly - history isn't neutral!!! I doubt we'd agree on the "history" of events we've both lived through in the past 10 years - we can only report FACTS; not imagined excuses for genocide! Fact: Cromwell slaughtered men, women and children in captured towns. Let the reader evaluate the morality without trying to explain it away. (Sarah777 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)) Personal attacks Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.