::Wow! We actually '''lost''' an article between Nov 20 and Nov 23. What is going wrong here??? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 23:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC))
::Wow! We actually '''lost''' an article between Nov 20 and Nov 23. What is going wrong here??? ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777|talk]]) 23:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC))
== Possibly unfree Image:Colcannon 4215w.jpg ==
An image that you uploaded or altered, [[:Image:Colcannon 4215w.jpg]], has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images]] because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the [[:Image:Colcannon 4215w.jpg|image description page]]. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 November 28#Image:Colcannon 4215w.jpg|the discussion]] if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. [[User:Porcupine|Porcupine]] ([[User talk:Porcupine|prickle me!]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Porcupine|contribs]] '''·''' [[User:Porcupine/Current-status|status]]) 17:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)<!-- Template:Idw-pui -->
Revision as of 17:24, 28 November 2007
Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert - Arbcom judgement at the Troubles Workshop
— A step towards registration?
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 ww2censor13:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're threatening to ban you for an entire bloody year at Arbcom. Absolutely f**k*** outrageous!
Show them your article creation list, Sarah, I think you probably have the record.
Sure you lose your rag from time to time - but don't we all, especially when faced with extreme provocation and wind-up merchnats....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N21/Adare Bypass
Hi Sarah777: No, I feel that the Adare bypass article would best remain seperate from the N21 page. I created it as an aside to the Adare page and, if anything, should be merged into that. The bypass is going to impact on Archaeology and the economy of Adare (including property rights) during the construction phase. When the road is completed then I would support merging it into the N21 page. rubensni
I noticed that you have an interest in Irish geography, and wondered whether you might be able to help clear something up for me. My question concerns whether or not there is a place in County Sligo called Derry. According to the Derry (disambiguation) page, there is, but when I then added it to the list of towns and villages in the County Sligo article, someone removed it after a couple of days saying that the place does not exist. However, I have since found reference to a Derry on a map at this website. Please could you advise?
Regarding that 'Derry', it's just a townland and nothing more. Shouldn't even be on a map, Heapstown would be the printedc location there if anything. Owenmoresider00:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Derry, County Sligo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
This article refers to somewhere that is nothing more than a name on some maps, not even a collection of houses. To even call it a townland is pushing it.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ==Derry, County Sligo==
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Derry, County Sligo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. --The.Q(t)(c)13:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Constituent country
If you seek balance, you must first establish verifiable notability for a derogation from what is normal. Verify a decent and proper source (see WP:V) that shows three constituent countries to be common enough to be notable, and then we can consider inclusion.
I sorta understand your objection to 'constituent country' though. In my country (Canada), we've got thirteen components - ten provinces and three territories. You could argue - it should be thirteen provinces. Again, call Northern Ireland a province, state etc, if you like. Just don't make the change only there. GoodDay21:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irish language place names
Sarah, coming out from a few conversations with others, I've created a Gaeilge task force to coordinate translations of Irish place names and other Irish-language related work. Since you are the queen of Irish geography (and since you seem to have taken interest in the topic over on IMOS), maybe you could add your name to the list of participants? I'm sure the usual Sarah gusto will blow the cobwebs of any lingering untranslatables. I don't think a massive knowledge of Irish is necessary, just a good spirit and a dictionary. You might want to also drop a line on the talk page so that we can all "get to know eachother" as the man might say. --sony-youthpléigh15:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Archive talk page
How do you find the functionality of the archive template you use? I would like to do something like that too, but wanted to hear from someone else who uses it. Cheers ww2censor00:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah, (my co-defendant) I think my talk page skills have improved a lot, and I don’t even feel the need to bite my lip. At least things are now moving on the article, material being added, and referenced. All good. I now feel I’m above all that petty snivelling backstabbing childness of the past and am starting to enjoy Wikipedia. I particularly try to think better of people. You must admit I’ve come a long way. Wonderful to talk again. --Domer4822:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Réalta sciobóil
Sarah, for all the work you have done in taking so many great photographs and adding them to the articles on Irish towns and villages and Irish roads – contributing hugely to the value and interest of those articles – I hereby award you the Irish Barnstar of National Merit. Picapica22:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy Sarah. I see that you downgraded Development and preservation in Dublin from a B-class to a Stub-class when your complaint was with it being POV. Why not tag the it as POV? While I basically agree with you, it is definitely more than a stub (a short article of a few sentences but you know that) and this is, for sure, more than that. Even if you don't like it, Start-class would be more accurate.
Sandyford; silly or serious? Neither really - I did that to illustrate a point to BHG re how we tend to score highly things we are interested in and then forgot to reverse it! As for the other article, surely a long rant is still just a rant? Hence my stub grade. (Sarah77700:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Commons account
Hello, I noticed that you upload a lot of images to Wikipedia. Do you not want to create an account on commons? The images uploaded to commons can be used same time on English Wikipedia or any other language. Cheers. Carlosguitar01:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have one, and have even uploaded five images to it. Many of the others are floating up to commons without any input from me, especially those in infoboxes I notice. Some day soon I mean to sort it all out. But my upload speed is so goddam slow. (Sarah77701:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sarah. More than happy not to link dates (ie years only) and only link full dates (ie day, month year) if that is the correct position. Many thanks for the barnstar - only just noticed it - comments very much appreciated. Ardfern18:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome and deserve it! I'm happy with your current policy of linking the year only but I noticed that Ww2censor is reverting some of your tidying up as he follows you through the villages of Ireland! (Sarah77718:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You see that I replaced the Mukaradeebwedding party massacre on the List of massacres. It actually has an article in WP already. If you pull some of those sources in I think it makes a stronger entry. I am not opposed to having legitimate U.S. massacres on the list, but I recommend presenting less anti-American attitude if want help, instead of resistance. Collect legitimate sources first. Events like Haditha and Srebrenica are all over the major Western news sources and television networks. Left-wing anti-war blogs and agenda driven editorials are not a good starting place. If you have to scrape bottom barrel .org sites, then perhaps an event should not be included on the list. If an event dose not have an article on WP already, perhaps it shouldn't be on the list at all.--Knulclunk (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not either anti-war or left-wing. But I think that removing Fallujah (twice and also twice by a serving US soldier) is wrong considering most of the, for example, Islamist massacres are not referenced at all. Should I delete them all on sight, or wait for the citation requests to be considered? I am not anti-American, or anti-British but anti-double standards on Wiki, which I'd reckon is an important part of WP:NPV. The fact that 90% of contributors to en:Wiki are British or American means that WP:NPV is something that must constantly be asserted by the small minotity who are not. I'm sure that Russian Wiki suffers from the same problem, but I don't read or contribute to Russian Wiki. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm with you on Falludja, but I think that Tvoz is right with regard to guidelines on this particular article. See also the article's header. I have personally (and somewhat painstakingly) added the right column with all these ref needed tags, asking for users to look for proper refs. Removing all those that still are not ref'ed (and there might be some there til the end of time) because some [****] is dragging you into an edit war is not going to help us. Best, · Michel (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I love this Wikianglocentricanarianism box of yours. · Michel (talk)
Thanks! But Mr Swatjester below has already pointed out that ALL edits to the article could be regarded as a revert (figure that!) so I won't be adding or subtracting there for a while -:) (Sarah777 (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
For the record - my addition of Fallajuh was instantly twice reverted though all the "Muslim massacres" are left sitting there with no references at all. When I pointed that out I was told by the reverter that my source was "a joke" and this was endorsed by User:Swatjester who said it was unacceptable. So I added that the unacceptable site was actually quoting from The Guardian newspaper to be told that this was a "biased source". So, in summary -
(1) There is instant and repeated deletion of American massacres which are MSM referenced;
But
(2) Removal of Muslim massacres which are totally unreferenced is POV editing and breach of 3RR.
And it is based on a string of incidences like this that I ruefully came to this conclusion:
NPOV IMPLIES
Anti-Wikianglocentricanarianism
Candidacy of Swatjester
I've moved your section on review of the Fallujah stuff on the massacres page to the questions talk page. The page exists to serve as a q+a forum with me, not as a page for review of your actions on List of Massacres. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender02:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not looking for just a review; I'm looking for your review, as a candidate for Arbcom. I believe that your attitude to this case might be very illustrative and useful to the community as to your likely position on cases that will come before Arbcom. Bit like your American Congressional reviews of the Presidents nominations to the Supreme Court. (Sarah777 (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm happy to give you such a review on your page, but beyond the initial question I believe this has little to do with the way ArbCom works at all. And the analogy is not correct: Congress does not ask the Supreme Court nominees how they would rule on an issue of substantive law, as that would be prejudicial, most simply answer questions about their past decisions and decline to answer questions about future rulings. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender03:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't aware of that. I thought they were quizzed as to their attitudes to abortion etc - mind you, I accept you aren't nominating yourself to the Supreme Court! (Sarah777 (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yeah, and ArbCom is different, I obviously can answer questions on how I would decide on certain things in the future, but it's difficult to do so because every case is different, even between cases of the same time (say for instance, two wheel warring cases may be completely different). ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender03:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad! Total collapse of the drive! I have been absorbed in a struggle to save Liffey Valley - what's YOUR excuse? Come on folks, follow the example of BHG and go ballistic!(Sarah77723:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
My 2 cent contribution: I was doing stuff off-Wiki that needed doing. (Feeling guilty 'cos my visits to the land of Wiki are really for 5 minutes at a time, while I am online for other reasons.) In the immortal words of Oscar, I'll be back. (Or Arnie.... one of the greats at any rate.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BHG is working on that but I have slowed down but am still working towards the 5,000 mark. It will be all downhill after that. Sure! ww2censor22:34, 4 November 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]
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]
"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]
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]
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]
