This is currently '''censored''' on the '''IrlProj''' pages:
It is a tally of #1 votes only. Keeping on eye the ''systematic bias'' angle: 96 votes so far. There are 47 users whose nationality I cannot identify ''or'' they are non-British/Irish.
*British editors.(29): F - 18; Not F - 11
*Irish editors...(20): F - 6; Not F - 14
*Non-Brit/Irish..(47): F - 17; Not F - 30
*Total...........(96): F - 41; Not F - 55
*'''Without Br input(67):''' F - '''23'''; Not F - '''44'''
[[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] ([[User talk:Sarah777#top|talk]]) 23:24, 4 August 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]
(With thanks to The-Editor-previously-known-as-John)
Your latest intro
Are you open to suggestions on stuff like sentence structure. I'm quite happy with the substantive stuff, but there are a couple of small things I think need addressing. Would you like suggestions? or should we lave well alone? Fmph (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was aiming for 23:00 on 29th - to allow for the vagaries of International Time. Sometimes Wiki-time seems to be an hour ahead of real time - sometimes not. I guess Wiki sets it's clock according to concensus. Sarah777 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm..another backronym? My Position Statement is in Position. On the button; as per my internal clock. Read it and weep.....Sarah777 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, I asked your question on the project talk page. Consensus is anyone can endorse a statement. I've linked your position under the 'Alternative perspectives' section of my statement, and likewise linked to mine from your statement. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!09:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sarah. Just saw this on your user page. Does that mean it's your Birthday today? If it does, then, Happy Birthday! If not, well, Happy Birthday whenever it is. Jack forbes (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Cow Rock! The quality of the editing here is awesome. I tried to find a stray comma or a misplaced colon but I gave up. Sarah777 (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heeeeeeeeellllllp!!
SOS. I went into the archives of this page looking for a photo only to discover that everything archived since November 2008 seems to have vanished! Obviously they are going to get me - one way or another. (I'm not sure the post November 2008 stuff was ever there as this is the first time in years I peeked into the archive). Sarah777 (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit screwed up. I've added links to the "missing" archives above. The counter is set to 23 so it has still been archiving, but it appears to have screwed up the numbering between Archive 13 and Archive 20. --HighKing (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah. You're right that I'm quibbling but (I hope) it's not about what you imply. I completely agree that the sources that survive on the 1641 rebellion are overwhelmingly mediated by an English and/or Protestant perspective. I wasn't trying to disagree with the current state of the article or condone the sources quoted on that particular sentence, and actually I would agree 100% that the rebellion wasn't an attempt at genocide. It was just that in the context of a NPOV article, "thought of by" seemed to do the job much better than "ironically claimed by". Greycap (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are 100% correct Greycap! The phrase I inserted was not encyclopedic. No problem. It is important to keep an eye on me:) Regards Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Population template
Hi Sarah, What is your opinion on the ongoing application of this template under different user names across the project. Seems a clear case of WP:DIS to me, due to the shotgun approach being taken by the ed. and his/her determination not to reply to questions or generally give a damn. To me this 'data' amounts to WP:OR and is more problematic than it might casually appear. I've asked for general comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Historical populations template. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the information is very interesting if it can be integrated into the layout without ruining the articles. I'm not up to speed on the history of how they were added/by who; I came across a few of them but never looked into who was adding them or how. Even though I personally find them interesting I certainly agree such widespread additions must be discussed at IrlProj and some rules about how, where and when they are added should be drawn up. Sarah777 (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah. Please clarify if you would like the summary by your name to read "in favour of option C, A, B, D and E, against option F" or only "against option F". Many thanks! -- Evertype·✆14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt you do but your position statement doesn't say what it is or why (only "...continue on down the list omitting only the 'Republic of Ireland'). It is the contents of your position statement that is being described by that tag line, not your preference (or so I thought at least).
In any case, are you sure it is option C you prefer first ("A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).")? I thought it was D ("The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (state)"). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a question of what I prefer and what to vote for. Clearly, the major problem is calling the state "RoI" as if that is it's name. Simply not acceptable. After that I might think Ireland (state) will get the most support but I'd prefer one article for one Ireland. Also Ireland (Republic) was dropped over my protestations (which were simply ignored), something to which we may need to return in due course. Sarah777 (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sarah, you can profile me as Cookie Monster. Seriously though, I think people are over-reacting, as there's no 100% way to find out if one's British, Irish, Russian etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your tally? If you must put a category for me, put Finland. I am not a British subject nor an Irish citizen, nor do I have any loyalty to the Queen or the Irish President. The "F" in my user name stands for Finland. User F203 (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, I hope you don't mind me giving you a wee piece of friendly advice. I think you should wait until the arbcom case finishes before putting this here. You don't want to give them any more ammunition. Jack forbes (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack; as I said - this has nothing to do with any Arbcom case. The stats are becoming rather damning of the "we are all neutral Wikipedians" bilge; aren't they? Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jacks right Sarah, and so are you. Highlighting preferences on the basis of nationality is not going to diminish that tendency. Less said the better. RashersTierney (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am under no illusion that it will "diminish" the bias. (That might, in fact, be construed as "intimidation"!). What I seek to do here is illustrate it; quantitatively. So that denial becomes futile and the absurdity of claiming that there isn't any (per Masem) is exposed for what it is. Sarah777 (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's no longer about whether Wiki can deal with it or not. The consensus is that Wiki doesn't want profiling to occur, anywhere, while the vote is in progress. And it doesn't matter that you can argue that consensus is swayed by all those British editors, this place is run the way it is run, and that means you obey consensus. Perhaps had this table been on your Talk page all along, it could be argued that it couldn't influence votes, etc, but we're past that point now. This topic can hopefully be revisited when the vote is over. --HighKing (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
_Chromatopelma_cyaneopubescens_-_Venezuela_-_Female.jpg)
