User talk:Sarah777/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Re Giano and matters arising

I have referred to a comment made by yourself in my Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence#Evidence presented by LessHeard vanU. You may wish to comment/clarify in respect of same either there or on my talkpage. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Can I just clarify that you were not referring specifically to WP:RfAR/Tango when you made the comment? I shall amend my evidence, which is directed toward that case, if that was not what prompted your edit.

As for the rest of your comments; yes, and it is a pit I have fallen in myself - when I was newer to the buttons. Unless an initial block is in error as regards length of sanction, I feel that an admin should never vary their original block without first obtaining consensus to do so, and even then leaving it to a previously uninvolved sysop would be preferred. This does not disallow another admin from varying the original tariff, or subsequent revisions, but again requires the gaining of consensus. I do not see any other way of not violating WP:WHEEL also (but see below), which is a bonus, and should be part of the "admin manual" - should it ever be written.

(Disclosure; I have reset another admins block period - and it was related to Giano - but noted what I felt was the inappropriate justification of the reverted extension both on the talkpage and to the previous blocking admins talkpage. I believe it was noted but not commented upon in the subsequent ArbCom/IRC.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

LH, no, I wasn't referring in any way to the Tango case - in fact I was totally unaware of it. Re the Admins Rulebook, I really think it is something to be considered. I notice 3RR, where the rules are (pretty) clear and unambiguous rarely causes outrage from the person blocked whereas 'civility' blocks usually lead to outrage and can prompt war between the Admin and blocked editor. This is partly because the rules of engagement are not defined - there is no measure of the Admins motives available to the victim who will usually be reacting with the a priori assumption that the block was bad and unjustified. I know that those who claim to abhor and seek to prevent drama are often those most attracted to it - but if the Wiki tribes are serious about reducing 'drama' on the project, then defined rules for Admins would be a great help. Or would at least be a bit of chèvre on the Smörgåsbord as Giano might put it:) Sarah777 (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Real Plague

I have to agree with with your essay. Could you have a look at Moreschi's attempt to impose "Discretionary sanction" across Eastern Europe here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FDigwuren Martintg (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I need to do a lot of reading to get a feeling for this case - I'll do it tomorrow. Won't promise anything, mind, I'm off to France for two weeks on Monday! Sarah777 (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Limerick FAR

Any chance you can get your hands on a copy of "The History of Limerick City", by Sean Spellissy (1998) for the History of Limerick FAR? I have looked here but would need to go to the NYC public library and read it there, which is not on. ww2censor (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ww - I certainly haven't got it! I'm leaving the country at 6am Monday morning so it will be a few weeks before I can look. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Have fun! Maybe you can borrow it from your local library when you return. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

....and some bad news for the Good Guys

This is the future!! Sarah777 (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

British-Irish Isles

Hang in there Sarah. Someday, an article British-Irish Isles will exist. Thus relegateing the article British Isles content to past-tense (historical) form. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And with Global Warming they'll cover less area but there'll be far more of them! Sarah777 (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the spirit. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Funny, I was watching some news clips on the BBC website, and it seems like our our illustrious first minister has adopted "these Islands". Anyway, what I am after is some help with Irish. I am trying to make sense of this. Any idea who'd be able to help? I know it's not modern Irish, but being as how I am not an expert, I have no idea how (in)comprehensible Middle Irish is or isn't. Thanks a million in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ballydesmond

Do you know where Ballydesmond is. Stop undoing constructive edits about the place. The Newsletter a few months a go stated that the population of Ballydesmond was 846 people. Uktvhistory064 (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

191 per 2006 census - I have added that with an inline citation and link. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol! I knew enough to realise that a population of 846 was improbable! Sarah777 (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL My a**e . Ask the preist the next time you come here about the population. Uktvhistory064 (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Sarah this M20 thing and the N86

I did more signs, it's been a while, I'm not so sure about the "M20". but i did it anyway,

I also did the N86 but it hasn't got a page, could you set one up, I've no idea how

I can't think of any more roads that "may" become motorways in the near future or have small sections (cos they connect to one). I've also added to the N72 and the N54 in terms of images, oops forgt to sign my name Limbo-Messiah (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff Limbo, ta. Angus - this is a quick peep-in, sorry no reply but I can´t make sense of the more medieval bits - France wasn´t hot enough so I´ve moved south! I´ll leave a note up above. (Sarah777 - can´t find the squigglies on this keyboard!)

A nice person translated it for me. Sorry I forgot to tell you that. Enjoy your hols. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Don't worry about grammar on my talk page. So long as it's not 'really' atrocious (yours wasn't), I look at the content, not minor perfunctory punctuations. That said, I really don't think it's too incivil to look at how both sides in that mess act and call them on it. That's all that's going on there, two sides who can't ever have peace because the grudge is too old. When they bring it to WP, they disrupt. After AN/Is to the Nth degree, and Arbcoms, and so on, people need to stand up to them, say that that crap's not welcome here, and be bold and blunt about it. And I did. ThuranX (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We must always bear in mind the strictures of WP:CIVIL (so I'm told anyway) and WP:NPA when dealing with these matters. We must not become what we oppose; must not use terrorism to defeat the terrorist or we ARE terrorists, so to speak. Sarah777 (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Heya

I semi'd your User Page due to a particularly nasty vandal. Let me know if you want me to delete those revisions, so they won't show up in your history. SirFozzie (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Foz - some kid by the look of it - I'd not be too worried but maybe delete - that phone number is a genuine 087 Irish mobile number (I couldn't resist!) though not anyone I know... Sarah777 (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The private phone number edit has now mysteriously vanished ;) and I've also set the move-sysop flag lest you get a visitor - Alison ^❤ 17:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The burst of anger was caused by Ongar! Sarah777 (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Flags at Irish Sea

Hya Sarah; Ireland doesn't have a flag, at least it doesn't use this one . That particualr flag belong to the Republic of Ireland. I'm sure you can appreciate the potential for trouble with your edits giving the appearance of a united Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ireland (country), uses the tricolour as its flag. Should a united Ireland (island) appear we can worry about the implications then. Sarah777 (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Meet me at talk: Irish Sea; as I only reverted at River Shannon 'cause of the IP (whom I'd suspected of stirring trouble). GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the only flag that has ever been in official use to represent the whole of Ireland - the so-called Cross of St. Patrick. TharkunColl (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Then Thark you will be supporting my position here, obviously? Sarah777 (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Your position being that the tricolour should be used to represent the whole of Ireland? Many in Ulster wouldn't like that, I think. TharkunColl (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That is actually not really the issue Tharkun, the fact is that that flag represents a state on the Island, not the Island.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the tricolour being used to represent RoI, as long as it's made clear that it's the RoI. The term "Republic of" is to be used in all cases of ambiguity, which this surely is. TharkunColl (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We may be getting our wires crossed here folks; what I'm saying is currently the tricolour on Wiki is used to represent Ireland (state) and that in the event of a United Ireland who knows what the flag might be? (maybe St Pat's cross FAIK). I'm not claiming the tricolour represents the Unionists in the sundered six! They have the Teddy Bear's head on Wiki. But the term "Republic" most certainly isn't "to be used in all cases of ambiguity" which this most certainly isn't. Sarah777 (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What does the tricolour represent, exactly? Green for the Nationalists, orange for the Unionists, and white inbetween for the vast, unbridgeable gulf between them? (Joke). TharkunColl (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That joke is mine!Traditional unionist (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I thought I'd made it up myself. TharkunColl (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been using it for years!!Traditional unionist (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just a bit obvious really. TharkunColl (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As the tricolour idea was copied from the French, I done some research - seems the white might represent the priests (Catholic, natch). Sarah777 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... don't priests wear black? I learnt that on Father Ted. TharkunColl (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A preacher in the Army, wears a collar on his neck; if you don't listen to him, yo'll all wined up in heck. Oh I don't want no more of Army life, gee ma I wanna go home. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way; 'Green' represents the Irish Catholics, 'Orange' represents the Irish Protestants, while 'White' represents the peace between them. See Irish Flag article. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No no, just the gap.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Lots of letters recently in the Irish Times letters page on where exactly the Tricolour originated and what the colours stand for, if ye are interested. www.irishtimes.com Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

But is the IT a reliable source?? Sarah777 (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, its getting there - they got rid of Kevin Myers, after all ;-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

River Shannon

Say Sarah; if you want to revert my change again, that's fine. PS, try and get Gold heart (the IP) to leave. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

G'Day - you should revert it yourself!! We have an unspoken rule that the offending term shouldn't be introduced into Irish articles unless it was akready there and has special justification. How does everyone know this IP is GH; could be anyone surely? His/her views would be shared rather widely in Ireland (island) you know. Sarah777 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll revert myself. I just have a mistrust of IPs, that's all. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You always know how to sweet talk me; ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

PS- I do believe we have a 3RR breach by the IP account. Also, I'm thinking of requesting page protection there. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Motorway Upgrades

Should we upgrade some of the junction templates to show HQDC has changed to Motorway. I know a lot of these routes presently have blue signs with Motorway designations on them, but still have a 100kph speed limit until September. That picture of junction 7 on the M6 for instance shows its now a motorway, although it is not in law until September. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably premature as they aren't technically motorways till Sept 24. Sarah777 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

River Shannon

Sarah - looks like you're in breach of 3rr on River Shannon - please self-revert. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see three reverts there Bastun - it would take a rather malicious Admin to interpret it that way. I made an initial compromise edit; and then revert twice. I had also asked Rockpocket to prevent warring here but he chose to ignore warring by the other side, I fear. Sarah777 (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It does show the importance of the watching Admins defending ALL agreed policy in these tricky areas; it seems that some editors (not all IPs) take advantage of the absence of some others to reimpose POV. Not good. Sarah777 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

16:04, 16:47, and 22:28 are all removing the BI term. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I said. One edit; two reverts. Sarah777 (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's 3 reverts (i.e. removing BI); but, still not a breach. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the non-breach but I'd still count just two reverts! Sarah777 (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Either way, you aint in trouble. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Never thought I was :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, I was blocked recently for 2 reverts, followed by a compromise edit which inserted different text and a reference, followed by another revert. I was told that because my compromise edit still resulted in removing the text "British Isles", it counts towards 3rr. Just FYI... --Bardcom (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bard, you need to understand the nature of the bad guys! Who blocked you btw? Sarah777 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bard's Personal Block

Hi Bard - guess that happened while I was away - any action taken against the Admin and also against the reviewing Admin who dissed your appeal?? Did you get an apology from either? (Note Ali, Fozzie, Rock etc are not often in evidence when one of their fellows goes bad).

"Personal attack by an administrator, and not assuming good faith. Background: this administrator reverted another editors edit [here] with the comment Thanks. What you're missing is Bardcom's one-man campaign to remove the words "British Isles" from wikipedia., and pointed to the ongoing RfA. I placed a warning on the editors Talk page, as I would for any editor that makes a personal comment to claim I am on a one-man campaign, etc, and any insinuation that my edits are driven by any motive other than to make this encyclopedia better. TThe reason given for this block is "vandalism". No warning were given, no discussion took place. This block is also an abuse of admin rights and policies."

This type of beheaviour is the plague of Wiki and must be stopped if the project is to survive and thrive as it should. Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah - check my edits. I've been moving house the last week. Seriously - I'm sitting on the floor here with a cable modem and an Airport Extreme - Alison ^❤ 23:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK - but what's the story with this User:William M. Connolley? Seems a cut 'n'dried case of using Admin tools in a personal dispute. Can he just be let away with that? Surely an apology and retraction are in order? Sarah777 (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Not a sausage happened - except for a lot of admins telling me not to put template warnings on admins pages, and to tell me that in future if I edit on multiple articles at the same time, the reverts on each article will count towards 3rr. It's effectively a gag, but I was pretty isolated on the issue with no support, etc. I tried to get in touch with an admin that I though would be fair and might advise me (one you recommend) but I got no response. Anyway, that quote above isn't even the worst one :-) from the same admin... BTW, hope your hols were good! --Bardcom (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey - Like the removal truck Ali! Were you hit by a tornado??? Bard, that is the sort of arbitrary crap that has the Admin community despised by so many productive editors. They seem to get more and more like cops with each passing day, closing ranks, seeing nothing the other "members" do. You are as entitled to put warnings on an Admin page as any other (and most Admins don't declare themselves anyway). Most of my blocks (which are then quoted against me) are not legit at all but were personal and dished out by warring Admins in the middle of a debate. Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a look, assuming it is the block discussed here: User talk:Bardcom#Blocked for 3 hours. Its not entirely clear to me why he made the block. Was it to prevent edit warring over the addition of the "British Isles" to articles, or was it in response to the templating? It certainly isn't explained very well, unless there is discussion elsewhere that I am not aware of. So its difficult to say whether it is a justifiable or not (but that fact that the specific reason for it is not made clear on the talk page is not a good sign).

What can you do about it? Well, there is little you can do to purge the block, since it is now expired. You could open a RfA on Mr. Connolley, but I would suggest you approach him to discuss it with you first. As for Bard himself, I would recommend he stop templating established editors in future - whether he means it to inflame or not, it will rarely defuse the situation.

Finally, I think you'll find that neither Bardcom's talk page nor the article that was being edit-warred on is on my watch list. So I consider it rather unfair to assume that I ignored the situation, when the truth is that I was completely unaware of it until today. Rockpocket 03:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User talk:Bardcom#Blocked for 3 hours, that block was reviewed by numerous admins on several pages[1]. It was a good block, and it stood up to scrutiny. Chillum 03:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that does make things clearer. Taking that as context: was it without warning? No. There was a prior warning (albeit on an article talk page) that Bardcom was aware of. Was it advisable that WMC himself block? I would also say no, primarily because WMC had decided to revert before warning thereby technically making him a party to the content dispute. However I would not say WMC blocked to get an advantage in a content dispute, rather that he fixed a problematic edit as an uninvolved admin and then immediately warned. Therefore was it an abusive block? I would say no. Ultimately, the block got near unanimous support when a complaint was made, therefore I can't see you getting too much mileage out of further complaints. Going forward, if I was Bardcom, I would take two things from this. 1) If an admin warns you to stop doing something or else you will be blocked, its a good idea to stop doing it while you discuss (or don't be surprised that you are blocked when you don't). 2) when someone has contributed for more than a few weeks, a template is generally not a good way to inform them about a behavioural concern. It doesn't work too well. Rockpocket 06:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rock, I didn't want to drag this up again. But there are a few problems with what you've said. There was an edit war in progress over edits I had done earlier with 4 or 5 editors involved, with lots of reverting, etc. I was starting to get involved by opening discussions and reverting some edits. You can see that myself and User:CarterBar had agreed to try to calm the entire situation down. On many article reverts (and User:TharkunColl would know specifically about this), I always warn editors when people state they are reverting because of "a systematic campaign to remove British Isles from Wikipedia" or other such rubbish. It's an ad hominen attack designed to move attention to the editor and not have to bother discussing the edit. I always use a template because IMHO, warnings should be clearly left on a users Talk page, and I happen to use Twinkle which makes things easier.

So the sequence from my perspective was, I'm come to River Thames frost fairs and I see on the Talk page an ad hominen attack. Since there are no reasons given why my edit is questionable, and since a different user had agreed with my edit and provided a reference (which was the edit that had just been reverted), I revert the article, then I warn the user. I did not see the "warning", and I probably wouldn't have registered it as a warning anyway, given the "don't be silly" comment. Within minutes, I was blocked. Afterwards when I stated to a different editor that I hadn't seen the "warning", the blocking editor responded with another grossly insulting ad hominen attack.

After I was blocked, WMC tried to connect me with the earlier edit-warring, and insinuated that I was the anon IP address, or that I was a sock of a banned user called GoldHeart. From where I'm sat, this looks like an attempt at post-justification to me. Whatever. You say that WMC was an uninvolved editor? Not true - he has continued to edit-war on the River Thames article. He has been asked several times for references, etc, but he ignores all requests, and constantly refers to my "campaign" as justification. He has also reverted other of my edits using the same non-justification. He is very much an involved editor.

You say that the block was reviewed by other admins and upheld. Yeah, well, lets face facts. Nobody overturns another admins blocks. And with respect, if you look at the admins that jumped in, you can see that they edit in WMC's space, or are British admins, and it could easily therefore be construed that they back each other up. Just look at the reasons given by the reviewing admin - not one correct fact in the summing up.

Lets dig a little deeper into the issue. Many admins have stated that I was blocked for disruptive editing, yet none have pointed to a sequence that might be considered disruptive. Not one. People point and say - Oh, but he had an RfC *and* an RfA. Yes - both dismissed. Are they evidence of disruptive behaviour? No. But it appears to WMC that the fact that an RfA was open (and being soundly rejected) was evidence enough.

I recognize that I'm still a little worked up about this. I'm going to lie down and take some of the purple pills now. But I take your point about not templating the regulars. --Bardcom (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Been away for 48 hours - despite having read Chillum above this was clearly a bad block. I've also since discovered that Connelly has a lot of previous in this regard. (see here). According to Sir Fozzie:

William M. Connolley repeatedly blocked Giano for incivility, which is an option, but the way he did it was HIGHLY aggressive. (Block someone, wait for them to reply uncivilly as you know they will, and then announce that the block has been extended). The last block, for incivility, was particularly egregious, as the rules are that you never block for incivility aimed at yourself.

To make things worse, William M. Connolley wheel-warred the block back in after having it removed, without discussion or consensus. No matter how egregious the behavior of Geogre (which I will get to shortly), you do NOT get full rights to wheel-war because someone undid your actions.

We have here an Admin dishing out blocks for breaches of WP:CIVIL by an Admin who seems unable to grasp the concept. I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that there seems to be no appetite for dealing with this abuse of power by his fellow Admins. (I'm trying to be fair Rock - but you know what happened now). Connelly must make a total and undiluted apology to Bard or resign as an Admin. It is as simple as that. Sarah777 (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. Most people feel the block was perfectly justified and it was already been given plenty of scrutiny. You are simply beating a dead horse right now. Chillum 19:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd never hold my breath waiting for Admins to tackle abuse in their own ranks. Sarah777 (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe me if this really were abuse I would be one of the first drawing attention to it. Chillum 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We must agree to differ - I've been victim of this (mis)beheaviour enough times to take it rather seriously. Sarah777 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a little challenge to Chillum (or any other wandering admin). Apologies to Sarah777 for abusing her Talk page. Seeing as how I asked WMC and never got a response, define "Disruptive Behaviour" in these terms:

• Wikipedia Definition
• My behaviour preceding the block imposed by WMC (specifics, no generalised hand waving. This edit, that comment, etc)

After that, define incivility and ad homin attacks

• Wikipedia Definition
• WMC's comments, to me, before/during/immediately after the block (I can provide a list if you wish)

I seriously doubt that you want to even attempt this.....what do you think?? --HighKing (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, inspired by Chillum (1!=2), I changed my Username. --HighKing (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I like your new name HighKing! Chillum 21:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you can see for yourself, when an admin does do something truly inappropriate the community does react to it: WP:ANI#Request_for_a_block_review. Admins most certainly do tackle abuse within their own ranks. Chillum 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But seemingly not in this case.....Sarah777 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That is because in the case I just mentioned the was was real misuse of tools, whereas in the case being discussed here the use of the tools was appropriate. You can tell the difference either by having a firm understanding of policy or by looking at the discussions giving the event scrutiny. Chillum 22:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What was your old name HighKing???? Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

HighKing is Bardcom. Chillum 22:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks! I though I just changed my user name! :-) --HighKing (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh! And I note that Connelly deleted my complaint without comment (attention Rockpocket) - it seems the only way to get a response may be to insult him. Seemingly normal discourse is beyond him. Then of course the civility enforcers are often rather uncivil themselves I have found, having a certain immunity from being in the Admin Club. Sarah777 (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the pieces that WMC deletes, it shows a pattern. For example, he has just deleted another complaint here. The pattern is obvious too. Same complaints every time. --HighKing (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the "community" feels such behaviour is cool if done by an Admin. Just don't YOU try it seems to be the lesson here Bard/HK. Sarah777 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate btw; I note the failure to address Bard's questions - I guess that is a general Admin thingy? Sarah777 (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If somebody kept on about something I did that the community already decided was correct I would probably ignore it to. This has been settled, your point of view did not win out, the point of view that the block was appropriate won out. There was no conspiracy or special club, the block was put before the community on the noticeboard and they approved it, admins and non-admins a like. You are basically beating a dead horse at this point. Chillum 22:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. Why don't you just come out and say that you have no way to answer my questions? That you are sticking up for a bad block and an abusive editor? I didn't expect you to answer...buddies and all that.... --HighKing (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to do your homework my good man. I don't even know the admin in question. The first I heard of the whole thing was the report on the noticeboard. So much for that theory. Chillum 23:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Avoid answering the question. Not cos you're a buddy, but cos keeping silent makes you appear strong and wise. yeah right. Look, if you can answer the questions, then answer. They're pretty simple questions. You'd think if the block was clearcut, there'd follow some pretty simple answers... --HighKing (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

While remaining silent does not guarantee you will appear strong and wise, choosing to talk about something to excess often produces the opposite result. Chillum 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You reckon the "community" never gets it totally wrong? And I didn't "keep on" about anything - I made one single post on Connelley's page. You'll note he reacts rather strongly to stuff he doesn't like and is liable to interpret "keeping on" as, maybe, "borderline vandalism". But I guess the "community" don't notice that. Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday to ME

Didn't twig till now but since 15th July I have been TWO WikiYears old; defying the odds and some appalling Admin decisions in that time! Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Wiki-birthday Sarah. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard to believe.... :-) --HighKing (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Chomhgáirdeas leat :) - Alison ^❤ 05:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Third anniversary lookin' a bit iffy right now; what with Bastun sticking his oar in. Sarah777 (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm "sticking my oar in" because after supporting you after your fairly recent 2-week block - where people had been talking about a community ban - I was hoping you'd stick to what had been agreed re civility and I'd not come across things like editors who disagree with you being called British Nationalists. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the view that most of them are, actually. Not all, of course. Sarah777 (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm neither ungrateful nor churlish; your support was very helpful - but with hostile Admins watching me like hawks I feared you might be spilling some WP:BEANS by referring to the outcome of that farcical show-trial. (I don't normally mind your wee bit of sniping at me; all in a Wiki-day, usually)! And - you never wished my a Happy Birthday.....Sarah777 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This one went to the market

Sarah, not sure what you did to piss off User:Johnpigg - his last edits were all directed at yours. Difficult to spot this vandalism. I reported the account but the admin didn't figure it for an SPA vandalistic account - go figure... --HighKing (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. Never came across "Johnpigg" before that I can recall. Sarah777 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Odd stuff, but from his UserPage I can guess what his gripe might be. He reverted a photo change I made; deleted a comment I made on a talkpage and vandalised the Oranmore article - I suspect he is hoping to lure me into "civility" breaches which can then be reported to some friendly Admin. Sarah777 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, I'm still waiting for some Admin (Hi, Ali!) to spot the activities of Mr J. Pigg and take the sort of action they'd do if I did a bit of stalking/vandalism. Like, maybe, banned for life as Elonka et al were advocating in my case for a much lesser offence. I guess justice and consistency will be imposed on the Wiki-police as soon as pig(g)s start flying???? Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism and following you about the wiki to mess with your edits - Alison ^❤ 01:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ali, sometimes you almost restore my faith in Admins; you and Rock (and Rock ain't to popular in some of my circles!). Seems Mr Pigg was a single-purpose account to try and get me to say something even sillier than usual and get clobbered for it! On another topic, I've just discovered WR and see you and the Unmentionable sparring there....so I've applied for membership and am now one of the select 7,000. Sarah777 (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

River Shannon

Hi. I noticed this. Rather than edit-warring, you should please discuss the merits of the edit on the relevant talk page. Thanks, --John (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Golly gosh John - and did you notice Thark's three reverts? (I am not edit warring; merely restoring the status quo before the British Nationalists got to work on the article). Sarah777 (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well golly gosh and jolly hockeysticks John - it seems you didn't notice your fellow British editors warring! Isn't that a surprise?? It surely is, most surely. Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you should avoid the inflammatory term "British Nationalists", otherwise action may be taken against you for being inflammatory. If you have concerns about the actions of other editors, alert an administrator, but do not make matters worse by using such terms/  DDStretch  (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

May I be assured that you will take equally seriously any allegations that myself and several other Irish Editors are referred to as "Irish Nationalists" (happens all the time and, oddly, this is the FIRST time someone has expressed such concern!) And describing Irish editors as "terrorist supporters" in edit comments would be even more serious??? (Though I realise we couldn't depend on the Admin Community to actually spot that themselves). Unlike our transgressions it would have to be pointed out I guess. Sarah777 (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The terrorist supporter condemned himself in his own rant. Go back and read it. TharkunColl (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no self-condemnation in his contribution. Could you point it out to us? Sarah777 (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You have no evidence to suggest that I would not be even-handed if I were present and able to take action within a reasonable time-period of the abuses being pointed out to me and me reading the notices about it. The fact that you choose to make stereotyping suggestions about administrators suggest you seriously need to adjust your attitude here. We have discussed your behaviour previously, where I thought you were happy with the advice I gave. Why the big change now? Administrators do not read everything, and do need to be alerted to matters. If you read my talk page (the notice at the top), you will see that I will not be always on hand over the next month, but my advice is not negated by that fact. I think you need to reassess your attitude to WP:AGF, and suggest you chat with User:HighKing for tips about it. since he seems to know quite a lot about it, given his use of the advice himself.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made my case on your page. If you don't fit the pattern I have observed then you are obviously not included in the generalisation. It's a case of "if the hat fits". As to the "discussion" of my beheaviour, that was an agenda driven show trial. IMHO. Sarah777 (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is that you should not be using a well-known form of argument which goes from observing the actions of a few to characterizing an entire group in a derogatory way, as that is clearly a case of prejudice. No use of a trite phrase like "if the cap fits" can escape from it being prejudice. If this is the way you think, then you will certainly have a poor time on wikipedia, and I encourage you to avoid making such unsupported generalisations.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep - you are correct. I'll try and be more precise and not stereotype folk. Sarah777 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - wan't that one of the conditions of your last unblock? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Not that I recall. There were no conditions. What conditions are YOU here under? I thought I'd made it clear to the community I'd only return unconditionally? Sarah777 (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. You were only unblocked on condition you refrained from incivility, Sarah, Bastun is right. That took me a few minutes to track down; how about returning the courtesy by spending a few minutes of your time tracking down the agreement on using the term "British Isles" that you've mentioned a few times now? If it exists it should be fairly easy to find, and if it doesn't we should stop using it as an argument. Best wishes, --John (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm. John has a point right now. Sarah - I don't want to see you getting blocked again! - Alison ^❤ 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ali, as you can see here there was a clear consensus of editors supporting the non-aqddition of the offensive term "British Isles" to Ireland-related articles. Sarah777 (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Too busy right now. Just a quick comment - I have not been uncivil anywhere so Bastun's unwelcome intervention is irrelevant (and to my mind is uncivil, btw). And were I blocked for no reason I'm sure Alison that you'd rush to unblock. As for below; it is hardly my fault if, understandably, some folk conflate "British Nationalist" with BNP now, is it? As for the quote from Bastun below, as I said, what the flute was he doing here anyway? Also, the Admin collective has utterly failed to explain why they only became interested in the Shannon warring when I made my lone edit after Tharun's three reverts? Civility is one thing folks; you want groveling, look somewhere else, OK? Also, I must say quoting Elonka is a bit rich! Sarah777 (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(response to Sarah777) I still am not convinced you have grasped the main point. To make it absolutely clear here: It is not that you should be "more precise" in any derogatory or disparatory suggestions so that individuals would be targetted if you think they deserved it, it is, rather, that you should not be doing any targetting of any kind of derogatory or disparaging remarks at all. Once again, I repeat, if you cannot grasp that, you will not do well on wikipedia. This requirement to avoid certain behaviours may well be viewed as including as behaviour to avoid, the asking of questions that may well be rhetorical such as "What conditions are YOU here under?" which could be viewed as being unecessarily combattive, in response to an enquiry about a previous undertaking you made: One in which Elonka asked "...when unblocked, will you promise to be civil to everyone, regardless of whether or not you think that they deserve it? I'm not looking for a yes/no here, I'd actually like to see you put things into your own words." and you replied "And why on Earth would I start being uncivil all over again if I got back - of course I wouldn't. Obviously from now on I will not: Be uncivil...." (in the link provided, above.) Take this as a warning that you are putting your future editing at risk here (at least for a while), unless you step back from using stereotyping arguments, targetted or not, and using such terms as "British Nationalists", to describe editors with whom you disagree on a specific matter here.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You may like to review the content of British National Party to fully understand just how additionally offensive your comments about "British Nationalists" may have been viewed by editors who do not deserve such a label merely for disagreeing with you and others about the addition of a term of disputable implication to certain articles.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd review The Great Famine (Ireland) to understand why inserting the term "British" into Irish articles is so offensive - or is this civility a one-way-street? Irish editors don't merit civility? Sarah777 (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, and on more than one occasion, the fact that you and others have been the recipients of incivility in no way justifies being uncivil in return. You do really need to grasp that. The fact that you are so resistent to this simple requirement means that I am not hopeful that you will avoid further action being taken against yourself in the future. If I am able to, I will review what you suggest and if any incivility is recent and ongoing, I would behave in excatly the same way, no matter who made or who was the recipient of uncivil statements or personal attacks. As I have already pointed out, my time is limited, and I can only respond to cases that I notice or have the time to deal with if my attention if drawn to then. That does not imply any motives of bias or "double standards" that anyone may make.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Except. How come it seems to be a one-way street in terms of warnings? Sarah is being warned about using the term "British Nationalist". I've been attacked pretty liberally over the past few weeks, even by admins, and it doesn't seem to bother anybody. When I (continue to) follow guidelines and procedure, not only is it ignored, but it ends up attracting even more abuse - being called a POV warrior and a crybaby on the recent AN/I thread. It appears to me that the ruder you are, the more respect you get. So yeah, I agree with Sarah777. From my experience, the admins on this are full of crap, paying lip service to policy, dishing out blocks to help their mates, reading lies and assuming its true, and picking on what seens to be the easy option. Go wag your finger at the incivil comments made here - or even better, why not actually examine the complaint which is the whole point. Or notice the volume of warnings dished out to Tharky for his edit summaries of Rv politically motivated deletion. Or scroll up and check out the link from "another grossly insulting ad hominen attack." and see what your admin community thinks is OK and to let slide - in fact not only let slide, but openly supported by Chillum. The hypocrisy is ripe. Hang your heads. A silent admin is as bad as the abuser. --HighKing (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Sarah, to clutter up your talk, but I have to answer that. HighKing is right that others were edit-warring (indeed by definition it takes more than one person to edit-war). However I don't buy the argument that because others were doing it it is ok for a given user to do it too, or that "a silent admin is as bad as the abuser". If you doubt me, try this argument on the policeman the next time you are pulled over for speeding. Let me know how you get on, but I don't think it works there either. --John (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

John, I might not share your respect for policemen I suspect. Historically they have been scum in my country - we tend to just about tolerate the current lot! But "the law must be fair and be seen to be fair" is an ancient common law principle that we do take very seriously. And what I am reading here from yourself and others is a total cop-out, if you'll excuse the pun. Why do myself, Domer, Bardcom/HK, LapsedPacifist and many others have to retaliate in order to attract the Admin Civility Police while they need each and every "crime" by a certain group of British editors pointed out to them (and then often ignore it anyway)? More replies, less evasion and less condescending preaching might be a better way forward here. Sarah777 (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to prolong this; perhaps the policeman analogy is imperfect and maybe a deputy sheriff is a better analogy as we are volunteers rather than professionals. In any case, I wouldn't want you to think you had to do anything particular to get my attention if you need help, beyond sending me a message. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

Cheers to Jimbo, his creation of Wikipedia was/is a stroke of genius. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll pass that on next time we're doing lunch - thanks from both of us. Sarah777 (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

John Pigg Presents...

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For being generally amazing! If you don't ask you don't get! Johnpigg (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

John. What can I say? Even after you are banned I'll have this as a treasured memory. I'm gonna put it right up top of this page and not let it get archived like my thousands of other awards. I'll never see a Union Jack again without thinking of you. X X X Sarah777 (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

River Shannon (part III)

I thought about making a pipelink, United Kingdom and Ireland; but I was concerned it might come across as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland --. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom would be better. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Or, as Snowded has suggested, just use Ireland; as geographically, the river is entirely on that island. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandymount‎

Do you want to have a look at Sandymount‎ as I think it need some of your touch after some recent edits. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Did a bit Ww - but this ain't no FA!! (Also seem to have crossed edits with Bardcom/HighKing) - but I fixed his errors too :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I was lurking on your page. I see you've left in a little more superlatives than I would normally - e.g. the bit about the more expensive houses - I thought that was a bit too much like an ad from an estate agent. Same as the word "affluent" in the lead. Affluent? Define... And "good" restaurants - the implication being that the others aren't? :-) (I missed that one myself originally). The pub "has become popular" might be out-of-date in a month, same as forward-looking plans for bus routes. Is Mapothers and The Gem gone? Is it relevant to mention all the businesses that are gone? You've more experience with these articles, what do you think? --HighKing (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as a denizen of the real suburbs I was only trying to be nice to the inner-city Sandymount folk. I know their homes are expensive and suspect their eateries are good! I was going to delete it all but pulled back; the info on the shops etc is fairly common in these sort of articles and I don't object if they are well written and embedded in a good article - this clearly isn't either but stubs are stubs - to be improved. Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean, if I had 10 cent for every crappy stub I've produced I could......pay the Westlink toll.....nearly ;) Sarah777 (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you object if I axed the offending comments? Just the minor stuff like the superlatives. Really hate them - I'll leave the info on shops and stuff... --HighKing (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not Bard; axe away - I was just failing to be WP:BOLD because deleting some local's view of the important things in a village can lead to a bad reaction. I just think we need to encourage folk to expand the stubs about their locality like that excellent chap from Banagher, not deflate them. But I do agree about the superlatives - chop chop! Sarah777 (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WR

I saw your comment at Alison's page. This is a long story, so settle in for a good cup of tea. The only Arbcom case that directly addresses this sort of thing is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, we also have Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External_links to guide us.

Over the years WR has done many things to harm WP, outing the real life identities of editors, harassing editors, etc. Many WP users do contribute to WR under the "Karma" principle in the MONGO case. Many other WP users find it offensive that a WP user would give WR the time of day. For instance, Daniel Brandt, Don Murphy, and a host of other banned users edit WR. One admin, Everyking, was desysopped for agreeing to provide deleted materials at a site like WR. In general, if you link to WR from WP, you should not link to a thread that outs the real life identity of a wikipedian.

Also, WR does not have WP's privacy policy, so anyone editing there should know that they can view your password there and have used people's IP addresses in the past against them. That said, there is no policy against an admin participating there, as long as none of their actions at WR violate a WP policy (proxy editing, unblocks, etc). Also, fair warning from someone who used to participate at WR, your actions here and there tend to be monitored more closely if you decide to participate there, but generally should not be held against you here. Feel free to email me or Alison or Lar for more details. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

lol - I think Sarah's actions on Wikipedia are already monitored to the max - amirite, Sarah? :) To Mbisanz: you're making the mistake many make of conflating the site (WR) with the actions of individuals. In my own case, WR didn't 'out' my personal information; Daniel Brandt did and indeed, many of the WR regulars were vociferously opposed to that, etc, etc. Same applies to WP; it's a site of autonomous individuals. I personally don't subscribe to the concept of collective guilt - Alison ^❤ 05:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine - I've no interest atall atall in "outing" anyone or stalking anyone; I just wondered if there was some policy. The plus of WR is that you can argue a point without the civility police; It's a wonderful feeling to see someone act, walk and talk like a duck and be able to say "You are obviously a British Nationalist" without the fear that they might block you in return! Sarah777 (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And as Ali says I think many of the Admin community have a sub-hobby called "watching Sarah777"! Sarah777 (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as a general question, and not singling anyone out in particular - why is "British Nationalist" considered an insult? ðarkuncoll 10:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the comments are an unsubtle dig at myself. First of all, there were some unsubstantiated allegations that people who objected to a particular stance by Sarah777 were "British Nationalists". Then I pointed out that some people may view that label as being particularly offensive, given that it may suggest too close a link with the British Nationalist Party. However, this has got over-simplified and polarized in Sarah777's account. It is a similar fallacious move to that which states that since some admins have failed to take action against editors who make personal attacks upon her, then other admins must be somhow guilty of hypocrisy if they point out that personal attacks she makes are not appropriate. The comments by Alison seem particularly apt here: "Same applies to WP; it's a site of autonomous individuals. I personally don't subscribe to the concept of collective guilt", when she was talking about wr being a collection of individuals.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well D, you (I think) it was who rejected my "is the cap fits" stance, which avoids collective punishment. But I wasn't just getting a dig at you; several Admins down the months have claimed that accusing folk of being British nationalists was insulting - you just crystalised the issue. And gave me the opportunity to explain why the very term "British" as applied to anything Irish is offensive. Not sure if that helps you Thark - I'd certainly have no problem with being called an Irish nationalist (and often am hereon); so long as nobody implies that I'd ever let that lead me to try and insert POV into an article. Removing POV it is what I do be doing. Sarah777 (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest, when you think of your country, does it include NI? I suppose it varies by context, but I'm talking about your gut feeling, as it were. ðarkuncoll 13:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It varies, as you say - but I accept that a million folk up there regard themselves as British and I accept their right to do so. A pity (in my view), but history places them in a different culture. Sarah777 (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

An interesting answer, because that's pretty close to what I think, when I think of the British Isles (i.e. with regard to the RoI). I think all four nations share much more than they don't, and form a natural unit. ðarkuncoll 13:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe when Britain dumps the monarchy and creates new states (like France and Germany post WW2) and outlaws any expression of support for the previous Empire! The UK is the linear legal continuation of the state that carried out repeated systematic physical and cultural genocides and colonisations in Ireland from the 1500s until very recently. Indeed, the partial success of these campaigns is what has led to the similarities you refer to; and the ultimate failure has led to the culture I now live in with its perspective on colonialism that differs radically from the majority view in Canada, the US, UK, Australia (the Anglophone West) - but is not dissimilar to the view from India or Pakistan. Sarah777 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

None of us can help what those in power do - especially long dead ones. I regard the Irish of the Republic as sundered brothers and sisters, though I accept that the reasons for this are largely the fault of people from this side of the water. ðarkuncoll 13:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I confess to being a Donald Duck Nationalist; I sure hope nobody accuses me of making PoV edits along those lines. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of your recent edit, how about Mercian Imperialism --Snowded TALK 11:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you've piped "Mercian Imperialism" to "British Isles" - surely Offa of Mercia would have been a much better representation of that phenomenon. ðarkuncoll 12:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I need AA on Wikipedia sometimes. I am British! But there is nothing wrong with that!! When did it become like Satanism? The tone behind most of the "British nationalist " slurs are as clear as a school bell. The British seem to come come a level or two under Muslims for being an acceptible target for general abuse. Admins really need to state this more often: No country, race, religion or culture is more or less open to abuse than any other. What if I said "as soon as Germany breaks up and rids themselves of their evil Nazi past." Would that be acceptable? We must always be wary of the purety of any single cultrural blood. This world is a colourful place, and the future is where we have to live, whatever truth is eating us about the 'past'. In terms of tbe evil British Empire and the still tormented Ireland - please! Ever heard of Palestine? Afghanistan? The Ten O'Clock News?? Today???????

This isn't a joke, because some people have admitted wanting to help break-up Britain (in the wider world). And the subject happens to be where they always edit. "Proving it, guvnor" aside - I wonder whether admins are really up on their job with this matter? NO bigotry either way (stated at all times) - it's the only way to manage that fact that people clearly have different ideas for this place.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, Matt, you'd clarify who exactly you are addressing those remarks to? Personally I don't care what you say about Germany - but it has owned up to its Nazi past; it is a serious crime in Germany now to parade Nazi regalia. If only the legal entity based in Westminster would do likewise regarding its Imperial past! As for In terms of tbe evil British Empire and the still tormented Ireland - please! Ever heard of Palestine? Afghanistan? Indeed I have - and both, ironically, are still suffering as result of that same Political Entity. Sarah777 (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is organisational continuity necessarily grounds for condemnation? The Cathlic Church, for example, is exactly the same organisation that is responsible for torturing to death countless millions of "heretics" in past centuries. Do all those who choose to be members of this organisation have to take on a share of the guilt? ðarkuncoll 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably...and I'd say many members don't fully understand or except the worst excesses of that institution in the past. Certainly the teaching I received at school would not have highlighted the darker side. Anyway, the Germans can worship the Nazis and the British can worship their Empire - I really couldn't care less - so long as they don't try to impose their nomenclature on my country. Sarah777 (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In my view, for what it is worth, those who choose to belong to any organization and who expect to share in its strengths and history of good works also have to accept a share in its weaknesses and evil works, and the ensuing guilt. I would like to remind everyone who has come to Sarah's talk page to discuss her views of most things British that she is on a civility watch. All of the remarks that run counter to her views, which are well known to everyone who has appeared here, could be classified as "baiting", however politely expressed. I am sure this page is being watched by those who will recognize provocation where it occurs. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bielle! I think I'm keeping the old incivility in check - and I'm used to Tharky's funny little ways by now. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha yes, too right! Just for the record, I would like to state that I'm not in the least bit offended by any anti-British or apparently anti-British remarks by anyone, and am most certainly not some jingoistic nationalist. Above all I value freedom of speech, warts and all. ðarkuncoll 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering - if I look at a mud covered truck and remark that the truck is dirty, is that an anti-truck remark? Sarah777 (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No. But it's certainly an anti-mud remark. Who said mud was dirty? ðarkuncoll 16:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So you are suggesting, by analogy, that while a certain Political Entity might be evil - evil is not to be dissed! Sarah777 (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In a world of political correctness, it is as wrong to "diss" (ugh!) evil as it is to "diss" good. Evil might have a perfectly good reason for being like it is. ðarkuncoll 17:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Your dissing of diss is noted. Sarah777 (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Sarah, if my note suggested you were being anything except perfectly civil. You have set out above the very model of civil discourse. I had a feeling as I read the earlier comments that the heat was being ever so deftly being turned up by some of your visitors and thus my note of caution to them. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all Biele; if I was I'd appreciate prior warning rather than walking (or talking) my way into a block. You could be right about some of the comments but I was just trying to explain that I don't mind the exchanges specifically with TharkunColl - and now he's got himself blocked anyway in a completely separate dispute. Sarah777 (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

But are the British people so definingly to blame? It is muddying the line between politics and people - that is the problem here. It's a provocative thing to do. You seem to politicise everything with the British involved. Yes, I'm aiming my comments to some degree to you (but am being general too). My first contact with you about 6 months ago found you being 'anti-British' IMO (I'm not arguing over the semantics of exact phraseology - a duck is a duck, and you've quacked like mad as far as I'm concerned), and I've associated you with it ever since - I've seen little reason not to. IMO, you have consistently pushed around the edge of going too far, and sometimes have done. Why can't you appreciate the fact that millions of good, decent, normal and brilliant people are proud to be British, are try and hold back your palpable distaste for Britain?

Am I to blame the entire Irish people because half of the old pubs in town have turned into super-expensive polished brass? No - I might have a laugh, but why blame a nation for a national trait? The Irish patently get around - and people make them welcome, admit it. You are blaming the British for an entire imperial past! It's an age old story of not knowing when to let go. Ireland is so popular and prosperous - that's what gets me. It's why I never find this attitude elsewhere: the vast majority of Irish simply don't need to feel like you do. They live all over the world too. Why can't they be represented on Wikipedia instead of just you?--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What is 'civility watch', by the way (as I've just read above) - i don't want to be seen as 'baiting'!? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to cheer up Matt. I reckon I said I'd not be remotely concerned what the British do so long as they are not trying to force their terminology into Irish-related articles on Wiki. And you are right, millions aren't - it's the few dozen who do are the problem. Feel free to laugh at that polished brass - I kinda like it - but then I've got exquisite taste! "Civility Watch" is a community scheme designed to protect innocents like myself from baiting. But, of course when the baiting is blindingly obvious it isn't very effective. It then becomes merely "attempted baiting" and I leave it up to the Watching Admins to decide on the appropriate action. Sarah777 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Bloody hell, that was a bit of a hassle! Unblocked now. Anyway, thanks for sticking up for me. ðarkuncoll 18:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No prob. But I've no attention of jumping off a cliff if you ask! Sarah777 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I always attempt to persuade, rather than enforce. I'd have to make you want to jump off it. ðarkuncoll 18:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes you come pretty close :) Sarah777 (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe - I do my best... ðarkuncoll 18:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Banagher

Hi Sarah. Thanks for all your recent work on Banagher. I am trying to get it to a GA, at least, so it is very helpful. I did however undo your last edit (modern in front of Laois). It was Laois before it was Queen's so modern may gave the wrong impression. The brackets infer that Laois is its current name in any case, so the addition of modern is probably unnecessary. It's a moot point anyway and I am not bothered either way, so revert back if you think it is better that way.--Corcs999 (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Corcs999 - you are doing a brilliant job on Banagher, I'm just giving a bit of help - please don't feel the need to explain why you reverse anything you don't think is right - I doubt we'll start edit warring! Keep up the good work - regards, Sarah777 (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Category debate

You might be interested in this.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Baltimore image

a vote for the daylight image. the sunset image MAY be aestheticly preferable, but the daylight image is more informative.Toyokuni3 (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That depends on what information you want. Sarah777 (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I've started a poll - current score 1 - 1; yours and mine! Sarah777 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A reply

I'm sorry that this problem has now emerged. I've given a reply on my talk page to your message, though I'm not happy about what I feel I can do just now.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Celtic tribes

Actually the truth is I hadn't even noticed that merger proposal - so yes, I won't oppose it any more. ðarkuncoll 14:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Thark, I feared you were going to start another war. I, too, have been accused of reverting without looking. It's a "heat of the moment" thingy. Sarah777 (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

IP 86.xxx.xxx

Perhaps it's paranoia, but I'm always a concerned when an IP 86.xxx.xxx appears on the British & Irish related articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm frequently paranoid - paranoia is enhanced awareness IYAM. Who is this X person. where???? Sarah777 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You've reverted his edits, momments ago. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Never check the authorship of manifest rubbish! Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I meant to say moments. I've been eating too many M&Ms lately. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

Are you (generic you) allowed refactor others' comments (even if your change adds clarity)? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would that concern you Bastun? What is the point of your question? Are you being petty perhaps? (The comment contained a typo error which confused its meaning - is but I guess if you are so concerned then revert the comment to its meaningless state.) Sarah777 (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

2+2 road

Maybe to say "nonsense" was harsh and incivil and I apologize if you assumed I was threatening someone, but a 2+2 road is a road type with little use and permitting low amounts of traffic due to at-grade interchanges and low speed and safety implied by a lack of hard shoulder, making it hazardous. Nevertheless, the article states that Sweden also uses this type of roads, but goes to a great deal explaining the situation in Ireland. While I don't think we should strike any Ireland-related material and I commend its existence, I do think someone should add about 2+2 roads in other countries. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Dual-carriageways without hard shoulders are not uncommon (eg in Britain they are built as policy and only full motorways have hard shoulders, and they've got the best road safety record in Europe). The only difference between this and a typical dual carriageway is that there are roundabouts instead of grade separated junctions; otherwise there is no access to the road. Also they are built on routes of low traffic volume. Can you imagine the Swedes building something that wasn't safe? Sarah777 (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If the junctions were roundabout interchanges, I'd take it as a good idea. For an example of Swedish safety, take a look at this. I'll try to find some information about their use of 2+2 roads. BTW in Croatia, where I live, there aren't many 4-lane roads out there (most are still in planning stages), but we've got very complex interchanges at places where no one usually travels (like Đurmanec interchange). Of all those 4-lane roads that do exist, almost all have medians, even those in the middle of a city, so I'm not very accustomed to these 2+2 or 2+1 things. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The 2+2 does have a median barrier; just no hard shoulder. Land is very expensive in Ireland and they like the tightest corridor they can get. Are you sure that photo is Sweden - looks like New York!Sarah777 (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it does have a median barrier, but a steel girder is usually not considered a very effective barrier, especially with large tractor-trailers in the area (you're talking about this barrier, right?). As for the photo, it's about Dagen H, the day when Sweden changed to driving on the right side of the road. Judging from the photo, it wasn't a good idea. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not a 2+2; that's a "2+1"; a design which has been quickly abandoned in Ireland because it isn't safe. Jersey barriers are the divider in 2+2 roads. Sarah777 (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

IP address geolocate tool

I think it may just give the location of the head office (or datacentre) of the ISP rather than the location of the actual user? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure - in my case myself and my ISP are nestling together in the paradise that is Sandyford - where it is currently cool, wet, windy and dark. Sarah777 (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Typical summer's day. Roll on telecommuting... if ever there was an excuse for a duvet day, this is it. :-/ Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(Republic of) Ireland

Have no fear Sarah. I've no intentions of bringing to the public talkpages, my concerns over how the pipelinks appear to the general public. I was just curious about the subject. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, howabout a trade-off. We hide either Republic of Ireland or British Isles; not both. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As ideas go G'Day, on a scale of 1 to 10 I'd give that a zero. Sarah777 (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, see Wikipedia:BISLES, where we're trying to hammer things out, concerning British Isles usage on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a six-month moratorium at Republic of Ireland, for revisting the name change suggestion. By the way, when is that 6-months up? GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't decided yet! Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

If any further evidence were needed of Anglo-American POV Uber-ales on Wiki take a look at this attempt by me to add a reference to an alternative view of the thinking in the Hisoshima War Crime! It seems the truth distracts from the narrative of the article. Three separate reverts in 24 hours. WP:NPOV my a**!!! Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Carton House

Sarah, I agree with your first revert's reason, any reason for the burning needs a specific cite. I found cites for other burnings that were sectarian and others that were nationalist. Its not clear in this case and since we don't know their motivation, it just shouldn't be there. I don't think using a cite from a similar incident works in this case. Thanks. Mohummy (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should claim sectarian motive without a reliable source - just that if we find one we shouldn't censor it. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

== Kinsale Article== Changes made by Sarah777

Extract "In 1690, James II of England & Ireland, following his defeat at the Battle of the Boyne, departed to France."

Reference your change of the above from James II of England and Ireland to James II of England only, King James reigned Ireland from the 06-Feb-1685. He left for France in 1690 which would suggest therefore that he was also King of Ireland as well as England.

Reference VANDALISM of other changes i've made please stop. It's not in the spirit of Wikipedia!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ —Preceding unsigned comment added by MantleGreen (talk • contribs) 02:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion many of the changes you made were either vandalism of extreme carelessness. I'm also aware that you have made the same changes recently under an IP, as Mantlegreen and as UpToCarlow (or somesuch) and that after a few edits you changed your name from 'Carlow' to MantleGreen....all this isn't really in the spirit of Wiki. Why not just set up a regular account, sign you comments, debate changes you should know will be contentious etc. If this particular revert was a mistake I apologise - I was actually reverting all your edits automatically on the assumption you were merely a vandal. Prove me wrong! Sarah777 (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:MantleGreen

Please don't use "rvv" to revert edits whose POV you disagree with. Vandalism is really only for people adding rude words and so on; this guy thinks he is improving the encyclopedia. I agree with you that the changes are unhelpful and have asked them not to keep making them, but calling them vandalism isn't really helping either. --John (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John - see above. I assumed this was a simple vandal based on a range of edits/actions. I could be wrong (there is a first time for everything ;) Sarah777 (talk) 07:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah\John -

Comments and changes were made in the spirit of Wikipedia to improve on the accuracy of articles. No hidden agenda is behind the comments\changes, just a desire for a truthful reflection of history.

Irish history is one of air brushing and a twisting of the truth, being used by all parties to propagate their extremism – it’s disappointing that this still occurs.

Maybe it's not deliberate in the many cases on Wikipedia, perhaps it's more a sad reflection of the communities of Ireland where the teaching of 'air brushed' history even today is still standard from an early age.

Is it not time to move on?

I'm not sure what "airbrushing" you refer to? If you mean the really major stuff like downplaying the nature of the Genocide of the 1840s by the British, then I'd agree. Somehow, I suspect that isn't what you have in mind. Btw, again, please sign your comments. Thanks Sarah777 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Irish history has been airbrushed in order to hide the facts. It was never taught in school about the rape and murder of women and children, and the ethnic cleansing that occurred during the Wars of Independence. More Bosnia than the tranquil Ireland we all like to imagine.

Likewise what about the 210,000 Irish who fought so bravely for their King & Government in World War I………And what about the Second World War. This wasn’t taught in schools either!

Of the 5 Nobel Prize winners in Southern Ireland, 4 have been for telling stories!

Yeah. Thought as much. As for the drones who fought for the British I cannot imagine any post-colonial country who'd celebrate those who fought for the occupier! (We go way past what any other nation would; partly out of sensitivity to the NI situation). The "ethnic cleansing" was minor and patchy and pretty tame by Bosnian standards - never mind what one might reasonably expect after War of Independence. Perhaps now you'd stop posting your unsigned comments here; they are no longer welcome and will be deleted on sight. I think my first reaction was the correct one. Sarah777 (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

____________________________________________________

Sorry Sarah777, I forgot to sign in when adding to our discussion above. Regards, MantleGreen.

The "discussion" just ended. Sarah777 (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Terrorist categories

I don't close nominations by counting votes. Technically, they're not even considered votes, and I've never seen anything specify a percentage for what merits "consensus", especially since it tends to vary depending on the discussion. When I reviewed the discussion, I actually had a rather hard time deciding how to close it, (so you could consider this a "no consensus" close, which defaults to "keep" anyway), but eventually decided that most of the arguments to delete were fairly well countered by those to keep, and several of the "delete" not-votes were simply "Delete per nom".

As for your questions, all deletion debates are closed after about five days' worth of discussion, except for at Templates for Deletion, where they go for a week. As for who closes them, any administrator can do so, and some clear-cut discussions are occasionally closed by veteran editors. Nothing and no-one decides who closes any given discussion; the only requirement is that they must not have been previously involved in the discussion.

If you'd really like to request a review, you are welcome to go to deletion review and start a discussion there. Before doing so, I'd suggest taking a look at what consensus really is, however, as consensus is not based on numbers alone. If you do decide to start a DRV, please let me know when you do so. And also, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think you are mistaken to believe that these things are not decided by a vote - in my (fairly extensive) experience they are. "Consensus" is largely a myth. I am very familiar with the 'official' Wiki theory but also note how it is widely disregarded by simple votes. At the end of the day a vote will decide everything; including a review of your decision to over-rule this particular vote. For the sake of WP:NPOV I wish to reopen the AfD and if the only means of doing so isc to request a review of your decision then that is what must be done. Sarah777 (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I do really want a review but I came across this:

So I guess I should ask you to justify your decision? Sarah777 (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I did above. If you don't agree with that, carry on. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK - I've requested a review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 8 - it is a category rather than a template, so I hope I got the process right. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the format, but you need to be a lot more detailed about why you want the review. Why you thought the closure was wrong, etc. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe I did make it very clear? You went against consensus and the weight of the argument! Sarah777 (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Very well put. Thank you for your sane comment. Tex (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

While working on the OTRS queue, I found the following message:

"Friday - August 22nd, 2008 - from Rooskey, Ireland: Time approx -02.04

I am not accustomed to using the Internet but while browsing tonight I spotted your website Wikimedia and I was particularly struck by a photograph of the River Shannon taken from Rooskey bridge on February 2003. I gather that the shot was taken by Sarah 777. Would you ever mind passing my congratulations on to her - I just can't work how to contact her without knowing her e mail address. It is a very fine shot. I just moved to Rooskey a few months ago, fell in love with the place and am very chuffed to see that Sarah 777 has placed it in the International domain. Thank you, and sorry for troubling you. John D. Nugent."

Isn't that nice? DS (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Very nice indeed - thank you Mr Nugent! Rooskey is a beautiful little spot as John points out. Sarah777 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You might find this amusing.

[edit] British Isles "Life would've been much easier, if the term British Isles had never been invented." Nonsense. This term was invented thousands of years before Irish nationalism (really just ethnic extremisim) reared its ugly head. It's not as if the British invented the term (which has always included the Irish.) Life would've been much easier, if the self-styled Irish Republic had not been allowed to break away from the rest of the British nation. Still, lets hope its only a temporary disgrace and insult to national pride heh and long may live the term British Isles, whether the hateful separatists with their anglophobia like it or not. Christopedia (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm also confident something will work out as well in the long run, not just any something but something very close to that which my heart desires. The nation will be reunited, but should never have been divided. There is much to be done and there is much that needs to change, but it is no longer in our hands. It's just frustrating in the meantime and it doesn't look like it will happen any time soon but it will one day, of that I have no doubt and I can certainly wait. People cannot live in ignorance forever. There is a long way to go but each day that passes is one day closer. It is just a tragedy and a shame that the nation ever had to be divided in the first place. Christopedia (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The British people can always join Canada and be United under the one crown. The Canadians would love to have part of the United Kingdom that resides in the British West Indies (the Turks and Caicos Islands) so how about taking the mainland territories in Europe and all? Then only Russia would beat us in terms of land area and we would have a population not far off 100 million strong. Sounds good to me! Christopedia (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't know me but i found this bile when i was reading discussions on british isles and stuff and i agreed with alot of your arguements so i crudely pasted this nonsense for you to have a look at i don't know what type of influence you have on wikipedia but maybe you should watch out for this "Christopedia" character if he begins to edit things you have an interest in.Delete this when you like and keep up the good work i'm happy their are people like yourself on these pages good morning.

Hmmmmm. I must look into User talk:Christopedia. Sarah777 (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least G'Day and Christo are agreed the Big Foot corpse was a hoax.....Sarah777 (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The Life would've been much easier... quote's author? is me. My meaning was, there'd be less disputes on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oooops! Sorry G'Day - I meant the Bigfoot corpse was a hoax; I'm sure that Big Foot one was real. Sarah777 (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got Bigfoots (or is that Bigfeet?) living in my woods. Their fur is very unfocused (thus the blur in the photos). PS- I wish they'd learn to stop leaving droppings in my backyard. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

While working on the OTRS queue, I found the following message:

"Friday - August 22nd, 2008 - from Rooskey, Ireland: Time approx -02.04

I am not accustomed to using the Internet but while browsing tonight I spotted your website Wikimedia and I was particularly struck by a photograph of the River Shannon taken from Rooskey bridge on February 2003. I gather that the shot was taken by Sarah 777. Would you ever mind passing my congratulations on to her - I just can't work how to contact her without knowing her e mail address. It is a very fine shot. I just moved to Rooskey a few months ago, fell in love with the place and am very chuffed to see that Sarah 777 has placed it in the International domain. Thank you, and sorry for troubling you. John D. Nugent."

Isn't that nice? DS (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Very nice indeed - thank you Mr Nugent! Rooskey is a beautiful little spot as John points out. Sarah777 (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)