Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I was being sarcastic. What is going to come of it? I tell you what I think. There will be editors jumping in to defend the actions, the discussion will be dragged down a number of blind alleys, it will be made to appear it is a content dispute and end up going no where. That I have lost faith in the policies and the process is born from experience. That I’ve had a checkuser done only today, because of an editor’s baseless allegation, for the second time. That a previous AN/I was ignored, two 3rr reports I filed were useless and two dubious blocks I received, have been very informative thanks. I've had every POV bandit on my case for weeks, and not one of you would step in and call a halt to it. So if I come across as a little bitter, well what do you expect? --] (]) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic. What is going to come of it? I tell you what I think. There will be editors jumping in to defend the actions, the discussion will be dragged down a number of blind alleys, it will be made to appear it is a content dispute and end up going no where. That I have lost faith in the policies and the process is born from experience. That I’ve had a checkuser done only today, because of an editor’s baseless allegation, for the second time. That a previous AN/I was ignored, two 3rr reports I filed were useless and two dubious blocks I received, have been very informative thanks. I've had every POV bandit on my case for weeks, and not one of you would step in and call a halt to it. So if I come across as a little bitter, well what do you expect? --] (]) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
: Domer, I've put a ton of effort into this. Can you read ] and let me know what you think? Thanks - ] <sup>]</sup> 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
: Domer, I've put a ton of effort into this. Can you read ] and let me know what you think? Thanks - ] <sup>]</sup> 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Alison, I can see straight of that you have gone way beyond what I would have expected, or thought. Having checked the edit history of this editor I naturally became frustrated and angry. That they act with impunity left me feeling isolated and resentful. I would like to thank you on behalf of all the editors who have felt as I have, and for restoring our confidence in the system. That I now know my concerns were being listened has done much than any outcome that may transpire. I would like to apologise unreservedly to both editors and Admin’s who have falling victim to my frustration as a result of any of this, thanks --] (]) 09:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Alison, I can see straight of that you have gone way beyond what I would have expected, or thought. Having checked the edit history of this editor I naturally became frustrated and angry. That they act with impunity left me feeling isolated and resentful. I would like to thank you on behalf of all the editors who have felt as I have, and for restoring our confidence in the system. That I now know my concerns were being listened to has done much than any outcome that may transpire. I would like to apologise unreservedly to both editors and Admin’s who have falling victim to my frustration as a result of any of this, thanks --] (]) 09:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
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)
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 talk • 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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))
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, ZZ ~ Evidence03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I thought you were officiating at the election! With judgement like that when you go for Adminship you can count on my vote -:) (Sarah77703:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC))
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))
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)
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))
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)
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))
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)
Photo's
Hi, there's a photo on Misplaced Pages 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)
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))
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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 Belltalk03:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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))
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 Misplaced Pages anymore, too busy trying to sort out my life and get things working. Keep up the good work. Ben W Belltalk04:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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))
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages... :)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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.
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)
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))
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)
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))
Y
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Consensus here clearly seems to be that this block should not have been made by Rklawton. However, it is granted under the condition that you avoid editing the List of massacres article, or its talk page, until at least such time as the block would have expired: 13:48 UTC December 23 2007. It will be so noted in the article's talk page, and any violation of that restriction is grounds for reinstatement of the block. Daniel Case (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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))
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)
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? - Alison07:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
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))
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 - Alison07:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
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))
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??!! - Alison08:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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))
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))
Comments like this aren't helping your case any. As this issue is being reviewed on ANI, you'll need to hold tight for review. There are enough people watching right now - Alison08:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Ali. I don't crawl, I don't beg. The block was outrageous; it should have been reversed an hour ago. I want justice and consistency; I have zero interest in sympathy. This case is cut and dried. Either I should be unblocked or RK should be blocked. Now. Immediately. Your comments oppose a block of RK and your (in)action has left me blocked. We live and learn I guess. (Sarah777 (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
(ec) Nobody's asking you to "crawl" or "beg", Sarah. A little patience and civility for the uninvolved would go a long way, however. We're all human and we're all volunteers here. We're working the issue on ANI right now, so please ... just let's figure this out, okay? - Alison08:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well as I (a) don't know what ANI is and (b) can't partake in it - I cannot take much comfort in its deliberations. There are a whole host of critical issues that are brought up by the List of massacres that can't just be suppressed. When an Admin can simply dismiss a source as "left-wing" Wiki is in serious trouble - I mean it is in a POV ghetto, big time. (I'm not the least left-wing, btw, but I sure shouldn't have to explain that). (Sarah777 (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
(outdent)I decline to unblock. I've already criticised Rklawton for blocking someone he was in conflict with, but you did continue to revert, which you know you're not allowed to do. If it takes this for you to learn that edit-warring is not allowed, then so be it. I'll leave your template up as I know this is being discussed centrally. You really need to learn from this, whatever happens. --John (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I'll learn from is that the systems stinks and that none of the Admins have the moral character to oppose one of their club. You "criticised Rklawton" did you? How about blocking him? I did NOT revert, get that? I added references each time. "I'll leave your template up" - what are you talking about? - Sarah777 (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the more outrageous it is. My contribution is deleted - not enough refs. I add one. Deleted - not enough good refs. I add another. "No - didn't like that one". I add another. "Sorry - 3RR, blocked". Frankly, any solution other than an immediate unblock and sanction of all the Admins involved in the blocking and supporting the block will be inadequate. (Sarah777 (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
Ok, it's nearly 2am here, so bear with me. I'm willing to unblock here, as the block was arguably done outside of process. It was done in good faith, IMO - RK meant well - and you were edit warring. If you undertake not to edit that article for the next 31 hours, in deference to what's gone on there tonight - you were edit-warring there and a number of admins have declined so I'm sticking my neck out - then I will unblock. Deal? - Alison09:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the block should be unconditional, the block was wrong according to our policies. That is, the admin was involved in the article. It sends out all the wrong messages, an admin can block an editor they are in a dispute with, against policy, and have no action taken against them, while the editor is blocked regardless. --Domer48 (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's a lot of debate as to whether the admin "was involved" or not - that's the problem. While I agree the block was done out of process (as above), a number of admins have already declined here and it's seems obvious to my 2am brain here, that Sarah was also revert-warring. I'm doing my best to resolve all this to everyone's satisfaction, but right now, I should be in bed. I'm only sticking around to try to help here - Alison10:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like the unblock to be unconditional but with both parties agreeing voluntarily to leave the page alone for a specified duration. However Sarah would be wise to agree to be unblocked and then take this matter through the proper procedures elsewhere if she wishes too. She does not have to serve the sentence to have a justified complaint. Giano (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Sarah was edit warring but she was drawn into it by an admin who I think over-stepped his bounds by blocking someone with whom he himself was edit warring. This is not the first time he has muddled his editing and admin roles. I agree with an unconditional unblock but hope she might think about staying away from the article for a day anyway. Either way though, I'd leave it up to her. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
i really need to get to bed here. Its nearly 3 and my kids had me up at 6am this morning. I'll see y'all in a few hours here. G'night! - Alison10:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ali now that I have cooled down a bit - and stayed well away from "the list". But this can't be the end of the affair; I do not accept I was edit warring; and I do not accept the block was made in good faith. Read the history of this article; there is a long history of cooperative editing by a certain group to keep certain types of massacre off the list. This is the second time this year that I have been blocked by an Admin involved in a personal dispute. I think Rklawton must resign his Adminship or be relieved of it as he is manifestly not fit for the job. What is the procedure for removing him? (Sarah777 (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
Let me expand on my first reply - I have no intention of even responding to anon IPs on this issue. Except maybe to zap any comments they leave on this page. That's pretty clear now, innit? (Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC))
Never been able to understand that. How is a web address that never changes more anonymous than your own "pen name" which can be changed in a couple minutes?67.161.166.20 (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Nobody remembers IP numbers; no track record, no form, no history - no way of telling if they might even be some "pen name" one is having a row with. Same goes for "new" named editors who start off with an obvious knowledge and expierence. It isn't the name so much as the trail it leaves allows us to sort the trolls from the rest. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
Hi Sarah. I just woke up here and am playing catch-up. Your case was discussed here last night, by the way. Your best bet, now that you're unblocked, is to tag your opinion on over there or to open a completely new case and allow the community to have a good look and decide accordingly. Right now, though, it looks like people are quite divided on the issue. Either way, best option is to present your case over there should you wish to - Alison17:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I've spent the last 20 minutes reading over this dispute, and I agree with Sarah777's position: Rklawton does not appear fit to be an admin. Ledenierhomme (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Take a look, I think for a first try it's looking pretty damn perfect! (In case you're wondering, this would be my specialised Irish-only version.) Schcambo (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Very fine effort! The "townlands" will need watching as they could explode in number in the future but I guess you jump that shark when you come to it! (Sarah777 (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
Hi Sarah, read just my contrabution Domer48 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC). They are still causing problems, on a number of pages I edit. Fozz placed it on the An/I notice board, and it just got filed away. Check out the posts of Fozz's talk page re: shot at dawn, fozz is being helpful. About the only one. Look after yourself, or we will be in the dock again ;). --Domer48 (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
If everyone is cowed for fear of being in the dock we ain't going to solve the WP:Bias and the abuse of Admin powers. Someone has got to be prepared to speak out. (Sarah777 (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
Hey Sarah, there is no easy way through this. Although Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a democracy, when it comes to content disputes in high profile articles, it is a democracy of admins and the outcome tends to be the PoV of the majority of those admins who care enough to be involved in a given article. This is not at all how WP policy says things should work, but it's how they work in practice. Moreover, this is an efficient way to keep codswallop off the wiki but it also can smother highly meaningful, published "minority" takes on topics.
Discussing this kind of thing on an article talk page can result in blocks for disruption, even vandalism (threats/warnings will almost always come first though). RfCs only help when admin "abuse" is way, way over the top or an admin has become very unpopular ("disruptive") among a big group of other admins. The only steadfast way to get by two or more PoV warring admins is with three or more very experienced, articulate, cool-headed and patient editors who have some understanding of the topic and khow to cite under WP:V and WP:RS and are willing to spend the time doing it but, it's hard to find three editors like this who are all so keen on the same article at the same time (even if one goes looking for them). Without this, the most helpful thing one can do is find articles meaningful to you but which aren't steeped in controversy (there are tens of thousands to look through) and grow them with strong citations. A little "back and forth" about article content is always ok but when it becomes a dispute or PoV war, you may find the time you're spending on it isn't worth it, neither for you or WP.
Having said this, I should say Misplaced Pages more or less "works" over longer stretches of time, which is one of the cool things about this wiki. Another cool thing about it is, editors who like nothing more or less than researching and writing in themselves, to helpfully edit articles for the sake of it, can always find something to do without stirring up a fuss. I've found that abusive admins, sooner or later, do either mend their ways, get de-sysoped or stop editing altogether (I've seen this happen so many times). Mind, this is only my take on this, as an editor. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem Gwen, is the system is NOT working, in certain crucial areas. Not even nearly. One of which is on the issue of the "Anglo-American" world v. it's opponents. "List of massacres" shines a spotlight on this; we have two Admins edit warring currently and applying a totally uneven requirement of proof for killings by US Marines and other Western forces compared to killings by others. (Sarah777 (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
Yes, this is what I was trying to say. If an article (wontedly one on a topic which is widely known in popular culture) becomes controversial, the system may not work. As written, it should, since sources one way or another are given their sway, but some PoV warring admins have learned the trick of rejecting the sources themselves and when challenged, they resort to anything... like ridicule, followed by disruption warnings if one persists in discussing it on a talk page, I've even seen vandalism warnings. At the pith, there is a self-selecting bias in the system for the PoVs held by admins (whose first interest here is often, but not quite often enough, editing articles for the sake of it). Sometimes this saves time but too often it keeps helpful content out of articles. Moreover, this can get flipped: Admin bias can wind up encouraging sources which are nothing more than empty and dodgy hearsay but which support the prevailing popular PoV among admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I've no problem going up against this gob shite, I just bury them in top notch references, and watch them wriggle. It's when they abuse their admin tools, because they lack the cop on, to back up their opinions is were the community should step in. First off, a no nonsence approch accross the board on civility on article talk pages. If it is an admin, who should know better, impose a loss of tools on a graded scale. --Domer48 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, spot on. The latter's easier said than done though. I mean, some folks are here more for the MUD side of this wiki than out of any thrill for writing, research or meaningful learning (never mind the WP:SPAs since that's not what we've been talking about). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Consensus here clearly seems to be that this block should not have been made by Rklawton. However, it is granted under the condition that you avoid editing the List of massacres article, or its talk page, until at least such time as the block would have expired: 13:48 UTC December 23 2007. It will be so noted in the article's talk page, and any violation of that restriction is grounds for reinstatement of the block. Daniel Case (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been reading the archives of this article - worth a look - see how the "opposition" tends to end up in bad shape. (Sarah777 (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
Hello there. I am the original creator of the article for Dromore Castle, which you rated as start class back in September, which I think is quite reasonable - I'd be keen to improve it, and so I was wondering what kind of thing you'd be looking for in order to see it rise higher than that? It was rated start class for the architecture project by another user a few days ago, but as of yet, they have not responded to my request for feedback, so I thought I'd have a go asking you! Thanks, Robotforaday (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Never really thought you were Philip! - Sarah777 (talk)
Ireland
When I came upon the article, it was quite empty. If you are an admin, feel free to take off the speedy deletion tag. --Kannie | talk00:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Many happy returns - a sunny day after a hard frost last night. Lovely weather!(Sarah777 (talk))
Thanks - she's so excited - I hear there's nowhere like Galway for New Year's - and that's from a New Yorker! I am totally jealous. So be nice to American college students for the next couple of weeks - one of them may be mine! (Hoping she'll find something open on St Stephen's Day so she doesn't starve...) Cheers Tvoz|talk20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm used to being nice to young Americans - I'm related to so many, I have to be! "Don't mention The War" in the words of Basil Fawlty - good advice in my family this time of the year! And rest assured; I don't think an American has ever starved over here....yet :) -- Sarah777 (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Tvoz - I confess I knew we'd been, eh, debating somewhere recently but couldn't place you so I checked your page and to my (pleasant) surprise found this!
I am "she".
This user belongs to a Misplaced Pages minority, sometimes described as "the 20%", but I'm beginning to think that there are more of us than that.
I have suspected the same as all the other active Wikipedians I know (that's 1 actually) are female! And she posts under a male handle 'cos she reckons women draw disproportionate fire and abuse. - Not that I'd notice meself! -:) -- Sarah777 (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sarah. I'm going to be honest here and 'fess up that when I came to WP first, I edited under a guy nick. I'd actually been advised to do that :) However, it didn't last all that long and I ended up switching to a neutral one ("Ali-oops") and then before my RfA to the one I have now, which is my RL name. There are a lot more of us out there than any of us know, I suspect :) - Alison05:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Alison - I think you're probably right about that. If you look for the intelligent arguments, you'll find us..... :) But seriously.... I'm also increasingly surprised to find more and more folks who actually remember JFK as I do, not as history. I'm encouraged. Tvoz|talk06:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
But; I don't really see why I should discuss the changes to the article with you considering that you are the only person with a problem with the original wording. I think you need to discuss your changes with the rest us to be honest.
Happy Christmas JD. POV words are against the Wiki-code no matter how many folk like them. But I'll have to argue about that tomorrow as I'm "doing the rounds" right now and heading for a hour in the hills - these days the sun slides behind Three Rock at 2.30pm. (Sarah777 (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC))
Ah, we must be neighbours! Three Rock is a favourite spot of mine as well.
But still I think its you who is inserting the pov.
Your editions are mis-informed (incorrect) concerning Delvin / Clonyn Castle.
In Delvin, there exists the old and the newer (or more recent) castle both are associated with Delvin town.
The older and more VISIBLY obvious exists within the town itself. The more recent castle exists some 300m away situated on higher ground, where exists today an excellent golf course. One of the accesses to the Castle exists on the N52,from Mullingar arriving into Delvin on the left hand side. The golf-course castle access is situated on the Collinstown/Drumcree/ Castlepollard road living Delvin on the left immediately having passed the Catholic Church on the right.
With all the good will that you possess, your edit is therefore utterly incorrect. Clonyn and Delvin are undissociable.
Admit others with exact local knowledge to proceed at their guise.
Deepest apologies. What threw me was that the article stated that Delvin Castle was in Mullingar - which it obviously ain't. I checked a few websites and saw there were two separate castles.- Delvin/Nugent (which I know well) and Clonyn which I had never heard of. And I see Clonyn is again described (twice) as being in "Mullingar", which is 18 km from Delvin. Need to fix that, local or not! (Sarah777 (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
Filling in the years
Hi Sarah, Happy Xmas to you. Many thanks for sorting out the tags put on some Years in Ireland articles. Every bit of date info I am adding is from existing Wiki articles. I am going thru all People from cats (eg People from Belfast, People from Dublin etc) and adding the birth and death details by Year. Incredible number of articles where no one has bothered to cross link to Years in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Eventually will also add them to Years articles in which Irish people are drastically underrepresented. You need to be a bit obsessive/compulsive for this!! Ardfern (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep - it's a bit of a grind but someone has got to do it! I think the series is probably safe from the taggers now that BHG is on the case! Regards -- Sarah777 (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1641
Hi Sarah, you have raised a number of very informative comments on the above article. I have some concerns myself, but am a bit tied up right now. I had a bit of luck on one of the articles I like to edit, there was a lot of information I wanted to add, but could not work out how to introduce it, until this oppertunity presented it's self. I have a copy of a number of the witness statements, and a lot on the type of bullets, if I had added it earlier, the cry of POV would have been sounded. Some of the most intresting information is in the National Archives, so it should address any and all concerns. Take care, --Domer48 (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Domer; I guess the reaction to my attempts to eliminate pov language from certain articles gives the game away (or at least the sympathies of the authors). While some of us have no difficulty openly declaring our POV (without seeking to introduce it into Wiki) some folk with manifestly equal and opposite pov either believe or pretend to believe they have none. Many of these articles need to be examined for anti-Irish editing and nobody better to spot the bias than pro-Irish folk! (Sarah777 (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC))
I have laid out my pov on my user page, and referenced it first. The one POV that really gets my goat is the whole religious conflict in Ireland one. Religion was introduced into the conflict, by the occupying power. If the Irish had been the same religion as the planters, some other difference would have been exploited or invented. This edit say it all. One of the best books I’ve read on the subject is “Life of Hugh O’Neill, by John Mitchel, first published in 1845. First chance I get, I post some quotes on the talk page. Paul Larkin, used some of the information from it, in his latest film which was screened on TG 4. Take care, and in the words of Tom Williams, “carry on my gallant comrades.” --Domer48 (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Sarah in the NOV-DEC edition of History Ireland, there is an article you might be intrested in on the issue of Irish sovereignty. --Domer48 (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
RfAs
Saw your comment on Sony's page. Perhaps you should watch this report page, but don't get hooked on it because it is refreshed once an hour but you can keep in touch with all the current RfAs! Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ww; it would help Sony if folk who knew his funny ways knew he was standing! I'd nearly vote for Revolving Bugbear on the basis of his name alone - but then I can be a bit skittish at times :)(Sarah777 (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
A tag has been placed on 1695 in Ireland, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:
Exists as 1695; a separate article is not needed
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Misplaced Pages 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.
Good to know the deletionists are wide awake! Thanks Ww. (I never imagined all these Lords and Ladys would be so handy; every one of them has to be born; do some stuff and die. All well recorded!) (Sarah777 (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
List of Massacres
Hi Sarah. I don't know whats going on in this article, but regarding this edit summary, you are are mistaken. I'm guessing you are referring to The Trouble's ArbCom. Firstly, I doubt this article would be covered in that decision, and secondly, the remedy is that a revert of an IP does not count among the single revert per weeks afforded to those under probation. It does not apply to WP:3RR, which will still be invoked for IP reversions. I just wanted to let you know before you find yourself blocked for 3RR without realizing it. Rockpocket03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Sarah, I answered you on my talk page and while I tend to agree with you about the content, I wholly agree with User:Rockpocket, you could get blocked if you rv more than three times in one day on this article (even an IP's edits) and moreover, if you steadily rv a couple of times a day for several days you could be blocked for edit warring. All the best to you! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a very poor system; it means if I have to go away for say, a week - come back, make the change and then one of the tag-team simply reverts again in minutes. That is where I came in! The only way to combat that would be to form ones own tag-team - hardly a recipe for constructive editing. This collaborative effort by a group of editors has succeeded for THREE YEARS in keeping this article "safe for the West". What is being offered is no remedy at all. (Sarah777 (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC))
But it hasn't worked here, where the main consensus is that US troops don't do massacres in Iraq, period. And literally every trick in the book has ensured that nothing has been achieved in three years. WP:V can be managed and manipulated; that is what is happening here. -- Sarah777 (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The decision is here. Note that it is a remedy the lists the "terms of probation" specifically for those listed, and that they are limited to 1RR per week on articles related to the Troubles. As far as I am aware, you are not on probation from that case, so it doesn't apply to you, and this issue is not related to the Troubles or baronets, so it wouldn't apply even if you were.
However, it does raise an interesting point, that if an IP was editing appropriately on a Troubles related article and someone on probation reverted 4 times in 24hrs, they could possibly claim that ArbCom said "reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert" and thus are exempt from 3RR. I don't think this is what ArbCom intended, as the remedy was specifically to counter the named people from gaming the system by logging out, not to diminish the contributions of people who choose to edit anonymously. I guess if that happened ArbCom could clarify.
Regarding the content itself, I'm not quite sure the basis for it being removed, but it looks fine to me. Some of the sources, like Indymedia, are not exactly WP:RS but there are enough of them to make up for that, and alongside The Independent I don't think it is a big deal. Is the "tag-team" removing it on the basis that it is not accurately sourced? Rockpocket04:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the content looks ok to me too. Meantime the article name is rather PoV and the content is list/label-oriented, which draws PoV warriors to it from both sides. I mean, I think any war is a massacre from beginning to end. Either way though, the outcome of the edit warring is, the page is now protected from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The article name is a disaster; more appropriate to the Guinness Book of Records than Wiki. How the top guys don't simply come down and say "this is not an appropriate article title for a serious encyclopedia" I do not know. At least myself and PB Shearer agreed on that but it failed proposals to merge or delete it. A handful of objecting editors = no consensus; thus this blot on Wiki's credibility remains. While I think Philip's perspective is skewed I honestly believe that even with the most neutral Admin possible it wouldn't work - because any consistent test of massacre will either open the floodgates to thousands of incidents or will eliminate everything. (Sarah777 (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC))
Which makes the article meaningless (the article, not the events) and truth be told, the kind of readers you're worried about can be rather smart about spotting weak, listy articles like this one. Since it's under pp for a couple of weeks I won't watch it, let me know if I can help though. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, I'm loathe got get involved in these sorts of articles for the very reasons you both state. I guess an RfC might be the way forward of you are really keen. Rockpocket05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Sarah. I hope you don't mind that I've moved your Borris photo down the page a little. It's just that I find the wet-Sunday-but-still-constant-traffic-both-ways picture that I've added does sum up the "Borris-in-Ossory Experience" for so many who know it chiefly as a place for a pee... (apologies, Borrisonians!) -- Picapica (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem; but don't get too Gavesque; there is Summer in Borris too; and remember - in the midlands it isn't raining 90% of the time! Just that you get some on average every second day! So I'd live with 10% of photos from Irish villages and towns showing rain - to be fair, like :)(Sarah777 (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC))
Sarah, you're edit-warring over there with the now-blocked User:Traditional unionist. Now, of all articles, this one definitely comes under the auspices of the Troubles ArbCom case. Please be careful here - you know the rules! - Alison22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a named participant, not restricted to one per week and two edits short of 3RR. That's also in the rules. Unblock Domer. --Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you like to be placed on probation, Sarah? My message was a friendly note to ensure you are not, is all. Feel free to ignore it by all means ... - Alison22:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope. But persistent edit-warring and disruption on "Troubles" articles certainly will get you on probation, buzzwords aside. Ask User:Aatomic1 - I put him on probation last month and it was endorsed by ArbCom when he disputed it, much to his dismay. I'm an equal opportunities admin, as well you know - Alison23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
That, so far as I recall, was the first edit I made to The Troubles since the Arbcom. So 'persistent' warring? Come on! (Sarah777 (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC))
Well, TU and Padraig both state that you were edit-warring against talk page consensus. I just checked there and you were. Not good at all - Alison23:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not one to bow to the tyranny of numbers - I'm a good Wikipedian that way. If God says it I won't accept 2 edits in 6 months is warring! And where does Padraig say I'm warring....link....need to have a word with him. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC))
Sarah, the issue was being discussed on the article talk page, a discussion you were involved in, you shouldn't have edited the infobox whilst that discussion was ongoing, even if you are right.--Padraig (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Sarah. Sorry I got to the party late. Since your request on my page, things seemed to have progressed somewhat. Its difficult to keep track exactly, so I'm just going to respond to your request. My apologies if what I am about to say has already been mentioned.
Firstly, I can't block TU for making more than one revert a week because he is not currently listed as being on probation per the Troubles ArbCom. The remedies were a bit of a mess at the end, and were not what I would have chosen, but we are at the mercy of ArbCom. My understanding of their decision was that only Vintagekits (talk·contribs) was placed on probation immediately (as a condition of his unblocking). All the other named participants and "any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles" may "be placed on Probation by any uninvolved administrator". This has since happened to LiberalViews (talk·contribs), MarkThomas (talk·contribs). In addition Princess Pea Face (talk·contribs) and Aatomic1 (talk·contribs) were placed under it for one month, which has since expired. So, all admins can do in the first instance is place editors under the probation.
So should TU be placed under the probation? Well, it takes two to edit-war, and you were also reverting. How about you both discuss the issues rather than revert over it? It seems to have died down now, but if this info-box warring continues, then I will protect the article for a while, thereby stopping anyone from reverting. Rockpocket03:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
On mature reflection....
On the basis of the old "all out of step except Johnny" test (not applicable if all the those in step are from the same Army; but obviously that's not the case here) I wish to apologise to all involved for my bad-tempered behaviour; especially, Alison, Padraig (who was 100% correct about my 'pettiness' on the Ireland article, obviously) and TU (God this isn't easy!).
In mitigation (not defence) of my tantrum I can only say that I felt (and still do feel) that Domer was the victim of a bad call.
I will now self-impose a prohibition on myself and stay away from all Troubles-related articles (not including issues pre-1700) till 13:55 on January 15th for being such a twat and will resume my anger-management classes asap.
Sarah, it's not your day. Please stop edit-warring on the above page. You're actually re-inserting POV which was added by no less than three socking accounts of the one editor. Please stop now and discuss the matter on the talk page - Alison02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is true though I wasn't aware of the number of socks I pointed out to one of them my suspicions. Aren't there strict rules against using socks like that? Anyway, I've added "Ireland" to my "avoid" list till 15 January. (Sarah777 (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
Yep. But when one Admin makes a bad call the rest are loath to quibble. Like the police I guess. I'm not a great fan of authority - as you maybe guessed! (Sarah777 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC))
Quite why the American public entrusts its pensions to something with such a misleading set of of initials is beyond me, but maybe it was some sort of joke by someone in Washington. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
lol - you should try living in America for a while!! Anytime, "Have you discussed your IRA membership?" appears on TV or radio, my brain twitches! :) - Alison14:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Rowan Gillepsie
Hi Sarah
This is the first time I've edited a wiki article, it was great fun, but I am complete beginner and you are clearly an expert! I was trying to figure out how to change that background title wiki put in with the lower case surname for ages. Thanks for your help! How did you do it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela Gardiner (talk • contribs) 11:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh.. I didn't sign either. Thanks again! You make a good teacher...is editing this how I reply, or am I supposed to be doing something different?!Pamela Gardiner (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Sarah, I've outlined my plan for the colloquialisms on the Waterford Talk page. Let me know there if you have any problems with it (its prob easier if you make your thoughts known there as opposed to here or on my own talk page). Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Domer, when you're done laughing, you may also wish to read this. When this gets filed, you may wish to voice your opinion there - Alison20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic. What is going to come of it? I tell you what I think. There will be editors jumping in to defend the actions, the discussion will be dragged down a number of blind alleys, it will be made to appear it is a content dispute and end up going no where. That I have lost faith in the policies and the process is born from experience. That I’ve had a checkuser done only today, because of an editor’s baseless allegation, for the second time. That a previous AN/I was ignored, two 3rr reports I filed were useless and two dubious blocks I received, have been very informative thanks. I've had every POV bandit on my case for weeks, and not one of you would step in and call a halt to it. So if I come across as a little bitter, well what do you expect? --Domer48 (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Alison, I can see straight of that you have gone way beyond what I would have expected, or thought. Having checked the edit history of this editor I naturally became frustrated and angry. That they act with impunity left me feeling isolated and resentful. I would like to thank you on behalf of all the editors who have felt as I have, and for restoring our confidence in the system. That I now know my concerns were being listened to has done much than any outcome that may transpire. I would like to apologise unreservedly to both editors and Admin’s who have falling victim to my frustration as a result of any of this, thanks --Domer48 (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Y
