::::Nope Ali; I'm not saying he was involved in the massacre; I'm saying their is [[prima facie]] evidence of bias. Not complicity. And, if you don't mind, it is past time this block was lifted '''OR''' that one was imposed on RK. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777#top|talk]]) 08:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
::::Nope Ali; I'm not saying he was involved in the massacre; I'm saying their is [[prima facie]] evidence of bias. Not complicity. And, if you don't mind, it is past time this block was lifted '''OR''' that one was imposed on RK. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777#top|talk]]) 08:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
:::::Hello? Any sign of an '''unblock'''? Note that an '''Admin''' has now reverted'''[[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]]'s last edit - the one '''he blocked me for making'''. OK? That means his block is a dud. So, why am I still blocked? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777#top|talk]]) 08:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
:::::Hello? Any sign of an '''unblock'''? Note that an '''Admin''' has now reverted '''[[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]]'s''' last edit - the one he blocked me for making. OK? That means his block is a dud. So, why am I still blocked? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777#top|talk]]) 08:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
This shall be treated as a clear sign of protest against the proposed remedies against Giano II for publicly revealing evidence that exonerated User:!! against a serious lapse of administrator judgement by User:Durova, placing a heavier punishment on Giano II than on Durova who caused the initial incident, and basing the remedies decision on alleged recurrence of behaviour which is not the subject of the arbitration case in question.
Auvinen was hospitalized with a head injury after an unsuccessful suicide attempt. Auvinen died later at night. - List of massacres
— Since amended!
This guy thought I couldn't see him either!File:IMG Sheepiness.jpgHappily doing sheepy stuff...
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 ww2censor 13:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks....I'm back now! wassup?!!(Sarah777 15:40, 8 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
wrong edit of Rochfortbridge website
your edit changed the word "prevention" to "relief", please give an account of your sources to back up this change. the meeting held in Gaulstown mentioned "famine prevention" and not relief. please do not amend text to suit popular image without prior authentication. famine prevention means to prevent famine whereas relief means to relive victims already suffering famine, two totally different things wouldnt you agree.
Hi Anon. I found the edit you refer to. It was one change in a host of changes I made during a full copyedit. The item was in a sea of such poorly spelt, syntactically challenged and grammatically grating gunge that I assumed it was just another error. My humble apologies. - Sarah777 (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it is an interpretation endorsed by Arbcom! They have ruled that referring to a genocide that occurred before the word was coined and defined as "genocide" was "original research".
I spend a lot of time firefighting on genocide articles, and did not realise that there was such an Arbcom ruling. Please could you provide me with a link to the page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The decision is completely illogical nonsense - but I'm still bound to curtail my freedom of expression based on it. This is the bit you'll be interested in:
Sarah777 engaged in original research
2) Sarah777 (talk·contribs) engaged in original research on Great Irish Famine over the usage of the term "genocide." ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7]).
Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
My argument that the famine met the current UN definition of famine was not disputed - but rather was dismissed as "synthesis" and hence "original research". (Sarah777 (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks. The Arbcom ruling is interesting.
NTW my own POV on that the famine was not a genocide. But see Genocides in history#Great Irish Famine two law professors were asked to give their legal opinion (due to British pressure on the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education) and agree with you. See
The Great Irish Famine Approved by the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education on September 10, 1996, for inclusion in the Holocaust and Genocide Curriculum at the secondary level. Revision submitted 11/26/98.
If you disagree Philip, that is your prerogative. But Arbcom did not actually disagree or dispute the claim that the famine met current definitions; the significance of the ruling was that the deciding factor was that contemporary sources did not use the term (and in this case it wasn't yet invented!) Applying the "dictionary" or "UN" definition was "synthesis". (Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
And as you can see from the debate/war on "List of massacres", this ruling has implications for many incidents which are now commonly regarded as massacres but where several contemporary "reliable sources" can't be found using the term. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Nonetheless they are great references Philip even if not contemporaneous to the famine itself. ww2censor (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed they are. Very few genocides can be as evil as the Holocaust; but that sure leaves a lot of headroom for other great evils. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Sarah, excuse my naivety on this subject. Have you ever heard past country called Southern Ireland? I've never heard of this term. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's common enough, usually used by English people in my experience but it pops up everywhere. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Oh - you mean the article. It was a paper-state in British Law; a "legal" fiction. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I see, thanks. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Southern Ireland" is a fairly common name for the Republic of Ireland in the UK, primarily because language abhores a vacuum. The state calls itself "Ireland", but that is clearly wrong since it was gerrymandered to include only part of Ireland. "Republic of Ireland" is a bit long-winded, so "Eire" is often used (because it appears on the coins, which used to flood the UK like - quite literally - bad pennies). But "Southern Ireland" is very common. One might as well object to the fact that the English call Finland "Finland", instead of Suomi. TharkunColl (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh..who was "objecting"?! (Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Some people have objected. Just thought I'd pre-empt any such attempt. TharkunColl (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm...right. Well done then I guess ;-) (Sarah777 (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I wasn't objecting either. What just happened here? GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just nipping a potential argument in the bud, that's all. TharkunColl (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G'day GoodDay - He suspected you had objectionist intentions! (Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Oh I see; you're mistaken Tharky - I didn't come here to argue with Sarah; I came here to seek her help on an article I wasn't familliar with. I appreciate your good intentions. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't assume you'd come here to argue with Sarah. In my experience, most people who object to the term "Southern Ireland" do so from an anti-British perspective, and you have expressed anti-British sentiments in the recent past. TharkunColl (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As this is Sarah's page, may we discuss this elswhere? My apologies Sarah & thanks for the clarificaton on the Southern Ireland article. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, I don't mind if ye discuss it here - I'm not very page-ist! (Sarah777 (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Tharky called me anti-British; I thought people saw me as pro-British? Maybe I'm sillyist. It's all very confusing, perhaps it was a bad dream. Anyways, thanks for not minding. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sarah. Thanks for supporting my suggested page move (Ballynacarrigy --> Ballynacargy)... and putting it into effect. It looks from the page history, though, and because the Talk page content was lost in the renaming, that you didn't use the normal "move" function. See (Help:Moving a page). Have now copied over the Talk content manually. Being no techie myself, I apologize in advance if I'm teaching anyone how to suck eggs :-) -- Picapica (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No prob Pica - there was already a redirect the other way (Ballynacargy --> Ballynacarrigy) so the "normal" move method didn't work. The history was in the redirect page when I finished making a mess of it...I just knew some Gentleman like yourself would sort it out! Regards (Sarah777 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
In such cases, which are not too often, just ask an admin to do it and they can move the talk page to the already existing page too instead of pasting backwards. Actually my official gazetteer says Ballynacàrrigy and even they redirect you from Ballynacargy and Irish Placenames of 1975 uses Ballynacarrigy, so I think your move was actually incorrect. Ballynacargy was listed as the spelling pre-1975 Irish Language Commission. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, ww2censor. I still hold to the view, nevertheless, that the move was correct given usage "on the ground". Your "pre-1975 Irish Language Commission" reference confirms me in my view that Ballinacarrigy is more the result of linguistic correctness than of any reflection of the name "as she is spoke". -- Picapica (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of only warning
Please note my warning here. Comments like this and this are totally unacceptable. Daniel 00:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really, this is also toeing the line very, very closely. I suggest you step back and take the precaution of not talking about the user but about the content. Daniel 00:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, as Daniel is one of the mentors in the Famine arb case, I strongly suggest you listen carefully to what he has to say here - Alison❤ 01:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what she is? She never mentioned that. But she needs to get a bit tougher on User:Sony-youth whose endless attacks on Irish editors seem to escape all scrutiny; and get tougher on User:Mackensen and rather than just seconding his remarks. Or is he another mentor? (Sarah777 (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
She's a he. But anyways ... Oh and Mackensen is a member of the Arbitration Committee - Alison❤ 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although Mackensen is acting as an editor here, and I will not hesitate to ban him from the page if he does something which I would ban anyone else for. I sincerely hope he doesn't, just like I hope everyone else doesn't either. Daniel 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - But I'm certainly not calling for Mack (or Sony) to be banned! Just maybe a light slap on the wrist!! Regards (Sarah777 (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment
Well, no, you didn't call me a Nazi (or member of the Nazi Party) per se. You did, however, imply very strongly that I was an apologist for a group of people whom you considered to be morally equivalent to the Nazi party. You're welcome to put whatever gloss on it that you like; it was obvious to all concerned what you meant. Mackensen(talk) 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what "all concerned" think I meant then clearly it wasn't "obvious". However, least there be any confusion, I don't believe I called you a Nazi; I did not intend to call you a Nazi and I don't believe you are a Nazi. Sincerely. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Just the peers then, but it'll do. Let's deal with the article. Mackensen(talk) 01:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a different comment
I feel a bit odd saying this, as I seem to sit on the same side of the table as you with respect to Giano's candidacy. But I am uncomfortable with some of the comments you are adding to the talk page of his vote. While we may not agree with the behaviour of other editors, or the reasons they've used to make their voting decisions, they do have the right to their own opinions. Giano has been (perhaps remarkably) very restrained in his response to the votes received, and I am not certain it serves him well that opponents are being challenged essentially at the ballot box. Would you consider refactoring some of your comments, or at least making further commentary on the talk page of the individual involved? Best, Risker (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are referring to. I made no comment on the behaviour of any other editor on the talk page of Giano's vote. Also, as I've said to many previous Wiki editors - I don't do code. If you have a problem with something I said somewhere, say it in plain English. Ta. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Arbcom Elections - Talk Page Box
Though flattered, I'm no admin - just a volunteer election official person. So anything an admin might decide about the box will trump anything I could tell you. However, strictly in terms of the election - anyone can vote as they wish, so long as they have suffrage, and add a link to their user or talk page with a further (possibly lengthy) explaination of why they voted as they voted. I interpret your "I voted for Giano box" as such a statement. The fact that it happens to be at the top of your talk page is not relevant - the key is that you are not telling other users to how to vote, or attempting to drum up support for a candidate from users who would not otherwise vote. In other words, a statement on your talk page is not canvassing, unless you push it on others in manners prohibited by policy. So, you're probably OK. Hope this helps, ZZClaims~ Evidence 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I thought you were officiating at the election! With judgement like that when you go for Adminship you can count on my vote -:) (Sarah777 03:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
My pleasure - and I'll hold you to that if and when! Best, ZZClaims~ Evidence 05:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article table; Dec 8 update
Where is Robotag?????? (Sarah777 01:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I just asked her that the other day but no reply. ww2censor (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked about once every three days for the past month! Anyway, I've started tagging again and have just completed UK electoral constituencies in Ireland (a lot of work gone into them). I'm hunting for another interesting set of articles. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I saw you were actively tagging again though I thought some of your constituency ratings were a little too generous. I have been assessing some of the already tagged articles but should restart to assess unassessed articles too, though I have some other real editing I would like to concentrate on, so let's hope BHG gets her bot back on track. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I concede I was erring on the "benefit of the doubt" side in my ratings. Took my Q from BHG that this was more likely to attract some attention than rating everything start or stub. But don't think I went overboard; feel free to downgrade and add tags for photos, boxes, attention etc. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Nah, I won't change any unless I think they are way off the beam; it was just a general comment. Working late tonight! what's it like in Dublin this weekend? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rust never sleeps WW. Tonight in Dublin it is wild and windy, cool and dry! Can hear the wind trashing the trees and whistling off the windows. And wherever you are?? (Sarah777 (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
For my sins, I'm living in New Jersey for the next few years but was back in Blackrock with my son in September and out in west Wicklow too. I must phone him tomorrow to see how he is. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Photo's
Hi, there's a photo on Wikipedia which you uploaded, that my mother took a while ago. What's the general procedure for publishing photo's on this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy82 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. How did your mother's photo get into my camera I wonder? Could you tell me which one she took, so that I might look into it, so to speak. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
So every photo you upload is taken by you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy82 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irish photos: New Article
I should look at the contributor as well as the article before I do a speedy. You recently added a new page with an Irish title. (I am sorry; I should have done a cut-and-paste on it so that I could make the right connection here.) On the page were two photos and a lot of what appeared to be coding of some sort. I marked it as a speedy because, in English, it was undecipherable and apparently unnconnected with anything. You might want to take a look at it, and let me know what I should have done. Bielle (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have found the article (Sliabh na Caillí) and it would appear that the coding was meant to be (and now is)infoboxes. At the risk of asking a sensitive question, does the title of the article have an Eglish translation. (I am not trying to be rude, but en.wikipedia usually uses translated names.) {Perhaps there isn't one. I really hope there is a pronunciation guide for the name then. :-) Bielle (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Belle...life gets complicated at times. I was actually in the process of moving the article to the English language version Slieve na Calliagh when you descended on me! I think it's OK now but we need to either delete or redirect Sliabh na Caillí! I'm trying extract the article about the hill from the article Loughcrew; which is about an area at the foot of the hill and a Megalithic Tomb up on the hill. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I am working at the extreme edges of my knowledge right now, so although I am very sorry to have made things even messier for you, I can't do much for the clean-up. You could, when you have finished the move of the material, ask for a speedy yourself. I think there is a template especially for original contributors when no one else has been invoved. Thanks for being so kind about my multiple mistakes here. Bielle (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No prob! It was pretty obvious your "intentions were good" as the song says! Regards Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some foolish thing some little simple thing I've done
But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
- Can't get this damn thing out of my head now - Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From FDNYirish
Sarah, im not too familiar with wikipedia and just created an account so I could leave you a message. Do you happen to have any more pictures of Clara in Co. Offaly? My family is from there and can't find more than a few pics around the internet. I'm in N.Y. so not really able to get there myself any time soon. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FDNYirish (talk • contribs) (14:38, December 11, 2007)
We crossed over - I wrote a note on your page. I fixed your Clara image and re-inserted it. Not sure if I have many more of Clara; but I'll check and can email any I find if you wish. - Sarah777 (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah - I fixed this editor's Clara image license (tagged it {{PD-Ireland}} which should be right). Should be okay now :) - Alison❤ 03:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ali - not so long since I was struggling with the same thing - Sarah777 (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You eagle eyed editor you! I left another "County Carlow, the Ireland" - but this time I got there before you! - Sarah777 (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I get what you meant, the edit I made to the talk page. I just have a real bug bear about people editing other people's comments, for any edit. So how are you doing, we haven't talked in a while? Ben W Belltalk 03:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've discovered some disgraceful Anglo-American POV in List of massacres and am backing a candidate for Arbcom - guess which one?! Apart from that by my standards I'm almost behaving myself :) - Sarah777 (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - I see, it wasn't my edit commentary in some Carlow you are referring to but my comment on your page.....I was curious why you reverted "I have started a discussion" to "I have stared a discussion" - I doesn't seem to make any sense yet another editor made the same revert. What is it to "stare a discussion"? Not familiar with the concept! (Sarah777 (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yeah, I just reverted it as someone changed someone elses comment. I know it wasn't correct, but it's something I think shouldn't be done. I don't spend as much time on Wikipedia anymore, too busy trying to sort out my life and get things working. Keep up the good work. Ben W Belltalk 04:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done
Well done on all those R road articles (and other Irish articles) and the associated photography! You must really travel around the country some bit!
Thanks Zoney - I've visited Sabre and CBRD but only as a browser. I like to check the the Irish photos on Sabre - see what the competition is up to - I keep an eye on your site too btw - waiting for an update :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use Image:OCDuallaSign 031c.jpg
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:OCDuallaSign 031c.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mangostar (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ta Flower! I have responded in the tunnel (page) - Sarah777 (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abandoned station
Sarah - no info on Kilbricken in Railscot - will see what else I can find.Ardfern (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the map it would be the next up the line from the Ballybrophy halt in the Dublin direction. Oddly, though there appears to be various railway buildings there isn't any sign of a raised platform. Looking at the photo in the article there are signs of some sort of platform at track level. All very odd. (Sarah777 (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Here is a photo of the buildings in the 'railway yard'. (If you enlarge the thumb you'll see a train left of picture - shows where track is). Building in the foreground could be a house (but note lighting fixture), but the warehouse type building with the overhanging roof looks some sort of freight related structure. - Sarah777 (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Butting in :)) Just looking at Johnson's Atlas and Gazetteer of the Railways of Ireland - which I must give back to someone - but which has a fairly comprehensive list of all stations, present and past, and I can't find anything. Next thing north-east of Ballybrophy is the Cuddagh road crossing (opened 1847 - see; really detailed) and then the closed Mountrath station. Can't find anything about Kilbricken. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, or the fact that I had a pleasant stroll through it's buildings just some weeks ago! Found this other pic in the files - the same train as it zoomed past where I was standing (can you see the LED "Dublin-Heuston"?) - and across the track the remains of station lights. Spooky! - Sarah777 (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whereabouts is it? I sort of vaguely remember Kilbricken being on the road out of Mountrath (where some of me ancestors came from) towards Abbeyleix - going straight on instead of turning right onto the Limerick road, I think -but that's all I know. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About 5 km due south of Mountrath; 3 km southeast of Castletown - triangulate! - Sarah777 (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eureka moment reply : LOL! Yup, that just dawned on me too :O). Must be the Mountrath-Castletown station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowerpotman (talk • contribs) 02:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eureka moment?!
It has just dawned on me - could this be the "Mountrath & Castletown" station referred to in the Castletown article? - Sarah777 (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
as my current "background image". Tusen(d) tak(k) -- that's my kind of road!
Have an awful urge, though, to want to pick up those fallen twigs on the left-hand side and throw them into the hedge -- a clear manifestation of the obsessive-compulsive tidy-up urge that has me shackled to Wikipedia... :)
Throw them into the hedge (or 'ditch' as we'd call it)?! I'd collect then for kindling :) Of course when the heavy branches were trimmed with a slash-hook they were lifted (with the hook) to fill in any gaps; poetry in motion to watch it - Sarah777 (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would your slash-hook be the same thing as the billhook I remember wielding in my childhood? Kindling, though, needed to be something a lot drier than what you would have got from yesterday's hedge-trimming... :) Still and all, you remind me of the special pleasure of coming down early in the winter morning to lay the first match to the fire (to be) which your dad -- not you! -- had readied the night before. -- Picapica (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baile Mhic Mhaoilir / Ballickmoyler (Co. Laois)
Yes, it does exist! At the junction of the N80 and R429. Was going to provide coords, but the relevant program seems reluctant to oblige at present... -- Picapica (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That one...thought it was in Carlow. My mistake. Mind you I think 17 edits to produce Ballickmoyler has got be be some sort of record! (Sarah777 (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Ah! It has grown I see Sarah777 (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17 edits to produce Ballickmoyler has got be be some sort of record.
20+ now, and counting -- and every one a gem (even if I do say so myself). Ballickmoylerans, you should be proud of this day! -- Picapica (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first 15 were dodgy; you have certainly upped the pace - but I see you have placed that irregular location map. Nice'n'all as it looks will it not be replaced by the standard infobox? (I think I may done that myself once or twice). (Sarah777 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Well indeed it might, Sarah a chara, but -- in the original spirit of what I call "Wiki-constructive-anarchism" -- I feel I must do my bit to counter the forces of uniformism... The "standard" infobox is all well and good, but I find the "map on table legs" ugly and the "hunt the pale green circle" tiresome. Experience has taught me that resistance to uniformism may indeed be, in the short term, futile (especially when the uniformists come equipped with all kinds of multi {{{ }}} curly-bracketed techno-transclusions, as I think they're called) -- but in the spirit of 1916 I will persist for now in adding republican location maps where maps are currently absent. I am not so revolutionary as to insist on replacing already existing maps: though that may inevitably follow once the shooting of volunteers starts... -- Picapica (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! That's like something I'd say :) Go vote for Giano quick! (Sarah777 (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Mind, while the standard box has functionality way beyond your rebellious gesture it is ugly as sin. Is there a case for fusion, dare I say synthesis?? - Sarah777 (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dare to say it, Sarah!
I'm not (all that) against infoboxes as such (anal-retentive alarms notwithstanding) -- it's just that I'd hope they could, mapwise at least in the case of Ireland, be improved... but you must be prepared to don some extremely thick personal-attack-proof armour should you ever want to try anything head-on against the techie/uniformists.
I'd be ready, though, to argue for synthesis in the form of an infobox-with-better-map.
Meanwhile (if there is still time!) tell me more about what I should know concerning Giano.
Giano is the anti-Establishment candidate; the rebels choice, beloved of the non-conventionalist. The spirit of Spumoni File:Animalibrí.gif - can any words be so eloquent? - Sarah777 (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bold text=Block=
So far I've been reverted without comment and accused of calling this user a troll all for refusing to permit an entry supported entirely by POV-pushing sources. You have reverted entirely or substantially my edits more than three times. Your edits in the article List of massacres match the very definition of WP:TE. As a result of all these factors, you are now blocked from editing. Rklawton (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not fit to be an administrator, you are abusing your powers in an edit war that you are obviously emotionally caught up in. I call on you to resign. I would also call on you to allow me communicate with more balanced admins so that I may be speedily unblocked. (Sarah777 (talk) 06:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Insults won't help your case. Rklawton (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am uninterested in your views on what will or will not "help my case". You have abused your Admin powers in an article in which you were yourself edit warring. (Sarah777 (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
blocked by US Army admin who was involved in edit warring
Notes:
In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=blocked by US Army admin who was involved in edit warring |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=blocked by US Army admin who was involved in edit warring |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=blocked by US Army admin who was involved in edit warring |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Actually, I observed an edit problem between you and another editor on this subject, reviewed the matter, noticed that you relied on POV-pushing (non-reliable) sources, and attempted to rectify the matter. In the process, I explained to you what needed to be done (find some reliable sources), and pointed out the problems with your edits. Indeed, I expected that you would be able to do so and was surprised that you couldn't. During this process, you made up some stuff that I never wrote (calling you a troll, for example), and have had to put up with several additional insults. If you continue to use this space to abuse me, I will put a stop to that, too. However, I would rather you just post your unblock request so that another administrator can review this exchange and make an independent decision. For the record, I am not in the U.S. Army, though I did serve over twenty years ago. Rklawton (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same difference. Your judgement in the case of sources which called the US Army massacre a massacre is pure 24 carat pov. Block me here if it helps - you are simply not fit to be an administrator. Period. (Sarah777 (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
It's hard to feel bad for either of you. Of course the block was unjustified, and Rklawton knows it. Then again, Sarah, you were edit warring like crazy on that article, and my sympathy is fairly thin for a block here. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually quite concerned here. Rklawton had done quite a bit of reverting, regardless of motive. Then he seems to have blocked Sarah without warning. What I see is Sarah making best effort to come up with sources for her additions (which, BTW, look a whole lot POVish to me, but how and ever). I see edit-warring from Sarah all right, but I also see a block from an admin with whom she is edit warring and I don't like that at all. I've already emailed Rklawton and asked for clarification but in the meantime, Sarah has also pmailed me since then. Guys - what's going on here? - Alison❤ 07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well Evil (if I may call you that) I don't accept I was edit-warring; Fallujah is a legit massacre; the references were challenged by the former US Army edit-warring Admin. I kept adding new ones and he kept arbitrarily dismissing them. I added THREE additional refs and resubmitted a "massacre" (that was deleted on the grounds of lack of refs) only to have it reverted by editor in breach of 3RR (who conveniently was an admin with blocking power) and I was blocked because he decided he didn't like the refs. The abuse of Admin power here (and the bias issue) is a far more serious issue than anything I have been accused (wrongly) of doing. I am not an Admin and don't wish to be one; this guy (amazingly) is - so we should expect some basic adherence to WP:NPOV and restraint in issues he is obviously emotionally involved in. (talk)
Thanks Ali - I still don't accept I was warring; I was playing by the rules against a tag-team. That's my view anyway. (Sarah777 (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I have opened up a thread on ANI about this. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Evil S., you beat me to it :) Let's just get some neutral opinion here. Sarah, please tone it down about the army POV stuff, though. That doesn't help anyone here - Alison❤ 07:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Sarah777 is blocked for POV pushing then I'd say blocking might be applicable for Rklawton as he violated WP:3RR([8])--NAHID 07:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK Alison - but as you know I'm not out to win any popularity contests - truth is truth - fairness is fairness - whether folk like it or not. Fact is on the Fallujah issue the involved editors and Admins contain a lot of US Army guys - those accused of the massacre. No cute way of saying that. In a court of law that would be prima facie evidence with the burden of proof on the rebuttalists! As for blocking Rklawton, based on his record he seems a good editor but unsuited to be an Admin. (Sarah777 (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sounds like you were POV-pushing in a big way, though, Sarah. Saying, "Admins contain a lot of US Army guys - those accused of the massacre." is the worst possible way of putting it. That's tantamount to saying that RK is complicit in massacre. Please tell me you're not saying that here??!! - Alison❤ 08:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a block is warranted for RK. Lara❤Love 08:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. He's just doing his job here. I'm not seeing any final 3RR warn, though - Alison❤ 08:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The warning, such as it is, is here. Rklawton (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone tell me what point there is bringing this up as ANI when I can't edit ANI? UNBLOCK ME NOW. - Cos someone needs to sort out Rklawton - or else block him and even the pitch - Sarah777 (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope Ali; I'm not saying he was involved in the massacre; I'm saying their is prima facie evidence of bias. Not complicity. And, if you don't mind, it is past time this block was lifted OR that one was imposed on RK. (Sarah777 (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hello? Any sign of an unblock? Note that an Admin has now reverted Rklawton's last edit - the one he blocked me for making. OK? That means his block is a dud. So, why am I still blocked? (Sarah777 (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
