::Hi Domer - long time etc. I noted that you were under siege and decided to lend a hand! Keep up the good work - and don't do anything I wouldn't :) [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777#top|talk]]) 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::Hi Domer - long time etc. I noted that you were under siege and decided to lend a hand! Keep up the good work - and don't do anything I wouldn't :) [[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777#top|talk]]) 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Sound Sarah, I felt like [[Rosa Parks]] at a Klan meeting. Thanks for offering me your seat, now if I hold the driver down, you kick him in the nuts. --<font face="Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''</sub></font> 08:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Why can there not be articles [[Atlantic Isles]] or [[Atlantic archipeligo]]. Among other things it would include the Faroe Islands which (tell me if I'm wrong) is part of the Atlantic archipeligo. It amazes me that when looking for these articles you get redirected to British isles when either of them would have far more information than the BI page. Shouldn't the BI article be redirected to either one of these? [[Special:Contributions/86.162.180.245|86.162.180.245]] ([[User talk:86.162.180.245|talk]]) 19:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Why can there not be articles [[Atlantic Isles]] or [[Atlantic archipeligo]]. Among other things it would include the Faroe Islands which (tell me if I'm wrong) is part of the Atlantic archipeligo. It amazes me that when looking for these articles you get redirected to British isles when either of them would have far more information than the BI page. Shouldn't the BI article be redirected to either one of these? [[Special:Contributions/86.162.180.245|86.162.180.245]] ([[User talk:86.162.180.245|talk]]) 19:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
They're threatening to ban you for an entire bloody year at Arbcom. Absolutely f**k*** outrageous!
Show them your article creation list, Sarah, I think you probably have the record.
Sure you lose your rag from time to time - but don't we all, especially when faced with extreme provocation and wind-up merchnats....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from changing my factual edits which provided a huge deal of information about Malahide Castle's myths/legends for locals, for whatever reason. If you feel your specific writing style is superior then I suggest you edit the body of the text and not just cut the entire thing which actually took time and research, two resources which no doubt your quick fix generation of "yoofs" are utterly unfamiliar with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.151.76 (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for calling me a youth. Apologies if I have deleted worthy material; it was not the style but the unreferenced nature of the material. I will check it out more carefully before removing it again. Sarah777 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you reside my darling, are you up to date on the current status of the local Clontibret infrastructure, because I assure you, I am. I was born and reared in Derrynoose and studied at Huddersfield university for 6 years on the geometry and infrastructure of County Monaghan. Please refrain from changing my factual edits which provided a huge deal of information about Clontibret and the surrounding area. I'm tired of jumped up hitler anticcs stomping the dirt into the older generation like myself. I will not tolerante any of my factual edits being removed in future. I notice you have a past of removing factual edits willy-nilly and you actions are complete breach of the wikipedia trust and I am calling on you to refrain yourself.
Jeez! Another crusty elder. I do not have "a past of removing facts willy-nilly". I do tend to remove additions which appear dubious and are unreferenced. That now infamous quote by Maurice Jarre (not) would never have escaped my beady were it to appear on my watchlist. Sarah777 (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enough is enough! I will not be tolerating your child like behavior. If you had even the smallest knowledge of the Clontibret local economy, you would be aware that JFE engineering is a major business and is still defying the recession and managing to still be making a substantial profit even in time of such financial hardship. I demand that you stand down and realise that you are jsut naive and ignorant to the Clontibret infrastructure. Clontibret is a class of a microcosm, largely because due to the fact that it has a major business in the local radius. Will you please grow up!!! I will not stand down to any modern day wanna-be hitler. DAS IST NICHT ZEIR GUT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFE1 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I'm only following (Wiki) orders. Re references etcetera. And notability. And so forth. ICH BIN EIN CLONTIBRETTER! Sarah777 (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will you give it to me, Sarah? I've already got two canaries who are well over five years old, plus a pidgeon. I could use another pet bird. Come on, please, pretty please, with sugar on top.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks - ben away for a few days R'n'R. No animal were harmed during the taking of that photograph, as we say in the movies. Sarah777 (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it them keep trying to insert "France was invaded by aliens and were transformed into android dinosaurs hell bent on eating everything. Nevertheless The British Empire still kicked their arse and enslaved their women and children" into the text?!!! Sarah777 (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the weather glorious?! (In Dublin anyone). The trees make it difficult to get all the buildings in a single shot - I'd reckon about 10am on a clear midwinter day when the sun is from the southeast and the leaves are gone - preferably with a cover of frost or snow. Have your camera ready! Sarah777 (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ireland naming
The Arbcom has directed that the articles about Ireland not be moved until discussion on the correct names of the related articles is complete. Domer48's edit, which you reverted to, was in violation of this ruling.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's BS. I did not violation any ruling. Everyone knows that RoI is not the name of the State. Sarah was correct to revert you. How can our readers know that RoI is not the name of the State, if you keep removing the information. That is a violation of our policies, WP:NPOV is a corner stone. Consensus does not and never has overuled policy. The current text on the RoI is a POV fork and should be removed. P. S hi Sarah. --Domer48'fenian'18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any article being moved; the text was merely made consistent with the subject matter. Also, re Arbcom, when are they going to come to some conclusion regarding the imposition of British pov on Ireland-related articles? The process seems to be going on forever. They classify any innovative WP:BOLD attempt to deal with British political terminology as "forking" but fail to deal with the root problem. As the British are numerically overwhealming on En:Wiki perhaps the only way to restore some WP:NPOV is by having new articles based on NPOV and leave the politically active British editors with their own set? Sarah777 (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Domer - long time etc. I noted that you were under siege and decided to lend a hand! Keep up the good work - and don't do anything I wouldn't :) Sarah777 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why can there not be articles Atlantic Isles or Atlantic archipeligo. Among other things it would include the Faroe Islands which (tell me if I'm wrong) is part of the Atlantic archipeligo. It amazes me that when looking for these articles you get redirected to British isles when either of them would have far more information than the BI page. Shouldn't the BI article be redirected to either one of these? 86.162.180.245 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. But that wouldn't fulfill the emotional needs of the "British Empire" lobby. If I had enough interest to write an article about the "Celtic Fringe" or some such, most of the content (if not the entire article) would be redirected to the "British" Isles as a "fork". The WP:FORK policy as implemented by British nationalist editors is an instrument of totalitarianism. Sarah777 (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has there ever been an article Atlantic Isles? If not, I may even consider getting myself a user name and creating one. Would they dare merge it with BI if there where information there that could not be included in that article? The article would include information on the BI's so surely there could be no argument against most if not all the BI article being merged into the new article. Or am I being too naive to think this would be allowed to happen. PS, I'm the same person as above 81.159.14.141 (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you could demonstrate a significant, verifiable difference between the Atlantic Isles and the British Isles then you could certainly make a new Atlantic Isles article without it being merged. If one is a subset of the other (i.e, the current British Isles was part of the Atlantic Isles), then it is likely the British Isles would remain a sub-article, rather than being merged across. You could try to make a case that everything should be under the Atlantic Isles title, but I doubt you would reach consensus, since the argument usually put forward is that British Isles is the most commonly used name. I offer no opinion on the merits of that. P.S. Hi Sarah, its been a while. Rockpocket00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BI cannot be the most commonly used name when the Atlantic Isles take in more than the British Isles. Sometime this week I shall rummage through my books and visit my local library to see how much I can come up with. 81.159.14.141 (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really follow that logic. The common name issue is only germane if they are the same thing, and if they are the same thing one cannot "take in more" than the other. If they are not the same thing, then they can each have their own articles. Either way, come armed with sources and you will get a much smoother ride. Rockpocket00:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you could explain this to me. If wikipedia have two articles one of which is slightly larger (Atlantic Isles) than the other(British Isles) due to information which does not and cannot be in the smaller article, can the two articles stand together even though they are so similar? If not, which article should be redirected. We can't redirect the Atlantic Isles article to the British Isles as it would have more information and would give the impression they are the same thing, and they are not. you are right about coming armed with sources. I shall endeavour to do so. 81.159.14.141 (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic we wouldn't have independent articles on the islands of Great Britain or Ireland, since both of them are smaller than their collective, The British Isles. Another example is Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia, all groups of islands within the larger Oceania. As long as it is sufficiently different, verifiable and notable we can have separate articles on both larger entities (groupings of islands) and their sub-entities (smaller sub-groupings or the individual islands). The key, in your case, is providing evidence that there is a significant difference between the British Isles and Atlantic Isles groupings. Rockpocket03:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
