User talk:Sarah777/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

If I might make a suggestion

Sarah, you might see this post, or my very presence on your talk page, as provocation, in which case feel free to remove it or call me names, but I assure you it's meant in good faith.

The discussion at ANI seems to be stagnating without arriving at a conclusion. So (in case you don't know, but it's worth stating anyway) the three ways we can move forward are 1) we can keep taking up kilobyte after kilobyte on ANI; 2) you can convince me to unblock you (since I'd just be reversing my own action and you're not formally banned, I have that ability) or 3) you can sit it out for a few months and appeal to ArbCom. The best way to make progress on 1 and 2 would be for you to come up with a list of restrictions that you could live with and that you think the community and/or I could live with. Myself or others might propose tougher restrictions and we'll hopefully compromise somewhere in the middle.

I'm willing to be convinced that your return to editing can be a net positive, and suggestions from you on how to mitigate any potential disruption would buy you a lot of good faith with me, with the community or, if you choose that route, probably with ArbCom. What I'm not looking for is a pound of flesh or some form of humilation, I'm looking for a way that we can all peacefully co-exist. However, I will only entertain this train of thought if you maintain a basic level of decorum towards other editors involved in this (you can exclude me). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment here if I may. I've been acting as an intermediary for Sarah, and she has agreed to the conditions here - though I expect you've seen them (they are under the numbered points). I agree it would be good if you could both talk things through (and for what it's worth I have no problem with your flag at all, and neither should anyone else – it's just silly knee-jerk thinking.) She should really be super-nice to you of course – it won't help anyone if she isn't! I don't want to spend much more time on this really, and that ANI looks like a black hole to me: I don't want to get sucked in too deep, or I could end up in trouble myself. I had no idea those things were full of such negative people. What you're doing here is fair-minded and positive, and I think that arbcom has a duty really to be exactly that. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I realize it is just part of your personality in some measure to write this way, Matt, but "she should really be super-nice to you of course" ??? This person labeled her a racist and wrote if he could possibly do so he would make an "infinite" block on her. He is an enemy of hers. Try "non-confrontational, proper and courteous in this setting", if she were to write anything at all. Sometimes I just want to whack my head against a wall. Sswonk (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about enemies and that kind of mindset will not get you anywhere fast. I could leave Sarah's block to be all but forgotten about and let her appeal to ArbCom in six months and, to be honest, I'm tempted, but if you read my original post carefully, you'll see that I'm offering to help in determining mutually acceptable conditions for unblocking. If Sarah doesn't want to negotiate with me, that's up to her, but please do let her speak for herself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Listen Harry. I am not speaking for Sarah. You have been demonstrably opposed to her in words and actions. You have not budged from opposition, and you have sought to control her actions in a way that assumes the worst about her. You can hit me with bluelinks all day, I don't care if you try to call what you did non-combative, it was. It is your action that got us here, don't try to say I hold some bad alternate mindset. I am not going to write anything further, but my point to Matt is for his consumption, and no one need be "super-nice". Thank you for making the gesture, yes we should work to cooperate on things. Start by believing what I just wrote instead of ignoring it. Sswonk (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully yourself (Sarah) and User:John will be able to work something out. RashersTierney (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well! I think Matt/Steve HJM hasn't asked me to be "super-nice" to him; in fact he gives me licence to abuse him a bit...tempting. I accept HJ that you are not seeking to humiliate me but I'm not sure, reading ANI, that I could say that of all the editors contributing. I suppose my main concern is that a block from the Ireland project and Ireland articles would effectively ban me from Wiki - it's all I edit; I can't really see myself getting motivated to edit articles on politics of Central Africa, as has been suggested at ANI. So I'm not really clear on what you are proposing - make some suggestions. Sarah777 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And Steve - please don't whack your head against a wall! This is Wiki - not RL; think of the damage you could do to the innocent wall :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The proposal made by Thryduulf and supported by others including myself, was in essence a ban from some pages (British Isles, British Isles naming dispute, England, Great Britain, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Scotland, The Troubles, Wales, United Kingdom and Template:British Isles) and some topics ("Anglo-Irish relations", "The naming of the group of islands comprising the islands of Britain, Ireland and geographically and politically associated smaller islands.", "The political status of the islands in the group collectively or individually", and "Irish nationalism") could you see yourself being able to accept such restrictions and still be able to edit ? and if not what do you think should change to make them workable for you ? Mtking (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, apart from the Ireland article I'd have no problem with that list (I don't recognize the Republic of Ireland). We need to tease out what the rules are in relation to Votes and discussions etc. I rarely make edits that cause problems - it seems to be mainly my liberal comments that draw the blocks. (I know that simply explaining the Irish problems with the Union Jack by means of analogy is deemed uncivil; but where do we draw the line on "anti-British" remarks? It seems to be rather widely interpreted by Administration. Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah, it's late and I can't make full sense of that. It's also missing a bracket. Why don't you scrub it re-approach it tomorrow? Thinking aloud this time of night perhaps isn't best here? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I am clear on in that statement (which isn't all of it), I'd say that you shouldn't comment on any editor's nationality in any way (positive or negative); nor should you be comparing anybody's flag to anything else - they're unlikely to be relevant. When you say "edits" I think you might actually mean "article edits"? (every contribution that is recorded in a page history is an edit). The simplest way to not make any comments interpreted as "anti-British" is simply not to make comments about the British. I'm not going to say any more tonight as I'm not certain I've understood everything you've written correctly and getting it wrong is unlikely to make you jump for joy. Thryduulf (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What a shitty thing to do, Thryduulf. Don't respond to this Sarah - just think - as I'm sure you are. You've got yourself in a real spot here, the admin who've known you in the past are clearly too-upset with you to help you out, and most of the people who are contributing have no idea of you, or the area. The obvious approach is to use the time-worn blocks, but these people are obsessed with creating convoluted topic bans.

So just a thought here. Apart from being illogical in so many ways, one of the problems with these particular topic bans (with the arguable exception of just British Isles plus a mentor) is that they will keep you in something of a difficult situation. Drama at some point could even be out of your hands, and people are clearly waiting for a slip. Why don't you spend the summer away from Wikipedia and ask for a new (and surely more sensible) review after 6 months - or whatever the period is? You could start editing then with the promise of not stepping over the obvious line (and you know where it is), and with the understanding that doing so will result in an immediate further block - including the real possibility of the big one. To be honest with you, I couldn't even look at the flag incident - I just read some of the reports. Even so, I feel sure if I was there I'd have been able to shut you up! I didn't look, because I know that when you lose it you lose all elements of consideration: you race over the line like you are charging out of the Alamo at these times. Wikipedia is for the swift of hand, not the fleet of foot. If you look at controlling yourself in the way Wikipedia clearly demands, you would be exemplary here: a properly honest editor. So why not take a break and come back even better? It's just a thought. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I won't put this between you and HJMitchell below, but if you do got for his suggestion: the "BI articles" are obviously British Isles, the Naming dispute article, and the flag stuff etc. Obviously it would not dealing with the term at all, eg on Terminology etc, and all the various articles that use it. Don't make comments on it on Wikipedia at all - just ignore it.

I'm planning to try and get a guideline together on it anyway which will stop unnecessary use, and hopefully be part of the beginnings of a new generation for Wikipedia: as a proper encyclopedia with it's own sensible uniform-usage guidelines - and not just a dumping ground for everything reliably-sourced no-matter how contradictory. Yes - with that in mind - theoretically the term could be replaced with another, but it was in the Guardian paper today (and they are supposed to use it less than most), and the BBC never stop using it - it's just the way it is. I can't envision the community accepting any actual alternatives to it, so you'll have to resign yourself to that. But I'm planning to achieve the best that can be done via de-politicing it (it has to be done), and specifying that it is archipelago-only and islands-only (ie location/geography based), and making sure it is not used per every single often-contradictory source - but only per the guideline recommendations. Wikipedia can then attain uniformity with it, and avoid confusion of meaning - like proper encyclopedias are supposed to.

One more thing - if you do decide to stay and accept editing restrictions, I would recommend actually requesting John as a mentor (HJM didn't mention it below). I've changed my mind on that one, as I think it could help keep problems away from you as much as help you avoid problems. It's a important message to people imo that someone does have this in hand, and people can leave you alone to get on with things then.

Hope you don't think I've interfering as much as helping. I'm going to try and sign off this now, before I get in the soup myself. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Revised / updated proposal

Sarah, given your comments above I would like to put this slightly revised proposal to you :

• You agree not to comment on

• the nationality or race of any other editor or
• any perceived national or nationalist motive for any edit or
• in a negative way any national symbol of any country.

• A page ban from British Isles, British Isles naming dispute, England, Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Scotland, The Troubles, Wales United Kingdom and Template:British Isles including the associated Talk pages. Nor to get involved in any !Votes and/or discussions about those pages.
• A Topic ban on any other page, discussion or !vote relating to :

• Anglo-Irish relations, broadly construed or
• The nomenclature used when referring to the the islands and countries of the British Isles archipelago.

• With respect to Ireland save for the topics listed above you would be free to edit, working where necessary with an administrator (you have suggested User:John) on areas where POV could be an issue.
• (optional) Post a notice at the top of your talk page, asking others not to post comments relating to any of the named pages or topics.

I have tried to refine down the topic areas How does that seem ? Mtking (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK - bar the voting restrictions. I guess I could vote without comment? Sarah777 (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I must commend you for you honesty and openness about the issue you displayed below, I am conscious about avoiding even the appearance of censoring you but my thinking behind the wording above was the hope that you would, with no reason to visit the pages, just remove them from your watch list and have no reason to visit them. If you are still following along with what happens, are you going to find your hackles raised so that you feel you may need to make a comment that you could regret later ? Mtking (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Voting restrictions? This really is getting too silly. RashersTierney (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things, one, I was addressing Sarah, there are too many other editors on both sides wanting to stoke this up so if you cant be constructive butt out, and two it was Sarah who (above) asked "We need to tease out what the rules are in relation to Votes and discussions etc.". If she is not happy all she has to do is say so she does not need others answering for her. Mtking (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, this block was imposed because of issues related to 'civility'. That should be kept in mind when responding to others comments. Specific topic restrictions are, in my opinion, an attempt to censor a long established and very productive editor. Some of Sarah's remarks were completely unacceptable and gratuitous and she knows it. A mentor has been proposed and apparently accepted. It would also perhaps be no bad thing if a 'cooling down' period was observed, where Sarah refrained from Talk Pages in areas where discussion for her can become fraught, as this seems to be where her comments cross the line. The problem is not about her article content contributions but on discussion pages where restraint sometimes goes out the window. RashersTierney (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is exactly for that reason, that page, topic and discussion bans on pages and subjects where her "restraint sometimes goes out the window" are a good idea, if she does not find herself in those situations there will not be any problems. It has nothing to do with trying to censor anyone. Mtking (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Censorship may not be the deliberate intention, (I have my doubts that this is universally the case) but it would be the effect in article space across a broad area. If Sarah was entirely unaware of her problematic remarks then topic bans might be appropriate. The rationale for upping this block to indef has rightly been called into question. There is every appearance that it is now being used as an opportunity to impose unreasonable restrictions through the use of blocking 'votes' against lifting it. RashersTierney (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What RT has been saying... Silent Billy (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Let's look at this another way. How can we prevent Sarah from getting herself into trouble again, while allowing her to contribute constructively in areas where her presence is undoubtedly a positive? I've softened my stance on a full topic ban, and I could live with a bit less. I'd welcome suggestions from you, Sarah, on restrictions you could put up with that might satisfy me (and/or the folks at ANI) that you're willing to 'play by the rules', so to speak. For starters, I think a ban from the British Isles article (we'll call them that for clarity) and articles on the associated naming dispute is in order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Moot, almost. If I'm not banned from the "naming-dispute" area there is no way I could restrain myself from pointing out that the decisions reached in this area are almost 100% to do with editor nationality. This is about as "controversial" as saying the Sun rises in the East. And as saying that the Sun rises in the East is deemed "offensive" by Arbcom then it appears that in order to survive on Wiki I must cease saying it and pretend that East is really West. As the "community" deems this fiction necessary I have no option but to avoid "naming dispute" articles. So I agree to do so. Sarah777 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If this appears to lack sufficient contrition I can only ask whether the "community" wants compliance with it's rules or to change my clearly observed views of the mechanics of Wiki. I assume compliance is the goal. Sarah777 (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I know I'd personally appreciate it if you could lay off the 'British POV' stuff completely. It actually doesn't just flare up at BI, and you are already seen as a 'battleground' editor. Ie that you have an ingrainded battle in you. I found what you just said above to be totally 'controversial', and you know that I do! You have no idea what any set of Irish or British editors think about anything (even within your own country re BI), and it simply leaves a bad smell when you prejudge so openly on Wikipedia. I suggest you keep the commentary in your head: it's like appealing to the referee - it will never change a thing, and only get you in trouble if you go too far. I've argued that you can think what you want: just save sensitive souls like me your thoughts on the British POV stuff, please. It's why I wrote those two very specific clauses:

• Acknowledge that it is against Wikipedia policy to claim that there is a propensity for inherent bias amongst British editors on Wikipedia. This is unprovable, and potentially offensive to contributing editors who simply happen to be British. It is also damaging to Wikipedia because it spreads bad faith.

• Understand that universally and broadly labelling "the British", by name or clear inference, with language likely to be considered offensive, is also against Wikipedia policy.

• A line on getting an indefinite block in the future.

I've since realised John as a mentor would be a good thing (as much as anything because your detractors will know that someone already has a responsible role), and it sadly looks like a BI topics ban - covering the main page, the dispute page, the taskforce, guidelines and templates - is wise too. Which is a shame, because I thought you may not actually need to go that far if you adhered to the above - but you clearly need (and wish) to keep out of harms way.

I'm off for a few days anyway, Sarah. Honestly - good luck. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah, if I may I know Bastun was questioning you but I for one don't think you should answer. Hi, Bastun. Sarah followed what you quote with "I have no option but to avoid "naming dispute" articles. So I agree to do so." I understand your question, but it is a tangential challenge to her, rehashing a months-old disagreement the two of you have about statistics and interpretations. It isn't necessary to go into that, will you please accept that Sarah is "agreeing to disagree" and drop the temptation to challenge her to debate it once again here and now? I am trying to stay on the sidelines, and will do so from now on. Avoid rabbit holes. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah, if I may interject as a wikifriend of HJ and the proposer of the original restriction set at ANI, the goal of all this is to keep you out of trouble, not keep you from editing topics you are passionate about. If the rules of the wiki required you to edit things you didn't care about none of us would be here. We want you to edit what you're passionate about, but at the same time we must have a certain degree of civility and mutual respect that at times has disintegrated on pages which you have edited. I'm not blaming you or anyone else for this, these are extremely controversial topics which fairly routinely degenerate, but what I will say is you are so passionate regarding your homeland that your defense of your views regarding it has at times escalated beyond reasonable disagreement and into disruption. This happens all over the place; on the wiki, in families, in governments...etc. I think you have the potential to make many valuable contributions wiki-wide. We need to figure out a way to let you do that without getting you riled up. Therefore the idea behind restrictions to specific articles is to protect you from getting back into the situation you're currently in. I think if you can stay away from the articles listed, and avoid discussing politics on the wiki, you'll be just fine. I am concerned regarding Ireland; I'd much prefer you to simply avoid that article as I think it's somewhat likely you'll run into trouble there. My other concern is that someone not sharing your views will make a comment against them and your response will get you in trouble. Provided you can manage/assuage those concerns I would have no problem supporting your return to the project. Good luck! N419BH 06:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I have managed Bastun's unhelpful intervention very well:) Sarah777 (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion from John

• As your potential mentor, I would like to chip in here. How about we try time served, stay away entirely from the naming disputes around the British Isles/Republic of Ireland, and avoid characterizing editors by their nationality at all? After all, the naming stuff is lame, all heat and no light, and you aren't likely to be able to change anything there, and it's likely to get you into more trouble, which you don't need right now. Regarding nationality, you really need to distinguish between nation states and their dreadful histories, and their modern-day inhabitants. I, for example, carry a UK passport and a US green card (permanent resident ID). And a California driver's license. This does not mean I automatically endorse anything the UK or the US does or has done in the past. I happen to really regret certain foreign policy initiatives both these countries have taken down the years. Don't even get me started on California's inane inability to set a budget that sticks. But there you go. I could go on about the many decent white (and black) South Africans I met over there, or my German girlfriend in the '90s; but you get the point. It should be easy for you to just totally avoid referring to any editor's supposed nationality on this project. I say "supposed" because in an on-line medium and in the absence of checkuser data, anybody could be anywhere here, and everything I have written regarding my personal history could be untrue (it isn't).
• From now on, you need to just judge each edit on its merits, and each editor. That's how we're all supposed to behave anyway. On the flip side, accepting this offer will allow you to get back to improving our coverage of places and roads in Ireland and elsewhere.
• For what it's worth, and bearing in mind a forced apology is no apology at all, I think it would be nice if you could apologize to HJMitchell for insulting his country's flag (he didn't choose it, you know, and the comparison you made was particularly offensive), and thank him for coming back with an offer he didn't have to make here. He has risen greatly in my estimation for doing this; as one who criticized some aspects of his indefinite block, coming back to revisit it the way he has may make him a better and kinder admin than me. Anyway, sorry to blether on.

• Time served (or back to 2 week block?)
• No changing names or participation in discussions about names in topics that relate to UK or Ireland, broadly construed
• No referring to anybody's nationality for any reason (you can call me a Scottish bastard if you like, but nobody else)
• Say something to HJM that lets him know hatchets have been buried all round, not necessarily an apology but just something to let him know this is over for you, as it clearly is for him

• The AN/I thread can be closed as I think the discussion there was inconclusive, in as much as I digested it all. I think if the blocking admin is happy after your statement to remit to either time served or the original two week block, we could just unblock. CAUTION: I have not run this by HJMitchell and don't know if he will agree to it. What do you think, Sarah? HJM? --John (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

John, sounds good. There seems some concern about cutting me loose on the Ireland article itself; not sure I ever had any problems there but if it makes people happier I could add that to the list (I have mainly only added photos and done bits on the geography sections). As for HJ, I do apologise if he felt offended by my analogy as it was by way of explanation, not an intended insult and certainly not suggesting that modern Britons are akin to the nasties in Germany in the 1930s. Sarah777 (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

FWiW, I'm taking a very big leap of faith here, but I'm willing to make a deal on those conditions. If you're happy with John's conditions, and you understand that no admin in their right mind would unblock you a second time if you don't keep to your word, then I'll unblock you. I'm not sure you really need a "mentor", but seeking advice from John if you need it might not be a bad idea. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I can't agree that any Admin who'd unblock wasn't in "his right mind":) I agree to the terms suggested; and I think we are both taking a risk here. I don't want to do another 20,000 edits, adding photos, creating articles, tagging etc only to be blocked by a cruising Admin. So I am motivated to try real hard. Sarah777 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Then you and I have a deal. Please don't make me regret this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope not. Look on the bright side; you'll regret it less than I will :) Sarah777 (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Welcome back Sarah! --John (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks John. Sarah777 (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad you are back. Mtking (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

TY Mt - Sarah777 (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Good news. RashersTierney (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

*Welcome back Sarah. Woohoo. Chienlit (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

a pearl inside every single one....

• Glad you're back. While you were away: these gems FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Lol! Also look at the article Conkers. They know I have it on my watch-list along with all the obvious ones - bait?? Sarah777 (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

All joking aside, it may be a good idea to remove pages coved by the above commitment from your watch list so that any such attempts at baiting are fruitless. Mtking (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been removing the obvious ones...but Conkers! Where does it stop? It seems Bastun is supported by one other editor in some obscure discussion; the question is: why did he choose to get involved? Sarah777 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Conkers does not seem to a page that should be in any way contentious to anyone, but what do I know, best to just ignore him. Mtking (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, possibly not. If you don't react to it then you'll be fine and if anyone is baiting you they wont get what they're after. If you do strongly suspect a pattern of baiting from one or more users, then the best way to proceed with the minimum drama will be to quietly advise your mentor. If they agree then they will report it/take action (as appropriate) on your behalf. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have referred it to HJMitchell - can't get fairer than that, can I? Sarah777 (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well someone's 'todger' is being tugged. RashersTierney (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Just checking in, a nice surprise to see. Thanks HJ and John. Of course welcome back, Sarah, and have at it! Sswonk (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

REFACTOREDSarah777 (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• I blocked Irvine's latest sock per WP:DUCK; I could have used the username alone to block that one. I have no intention of reverting that edit and neither should you though. Who cares what wording the conker article uses, and it seems it was agreed centrally to use that wording. Would you mind refactoring the "true colours" comment above as Bastun has requested? It's uncomfortably close to flags and nationality and it would be a great gesture of good faith if you could strike it. Thanks, and sorry to be bothering you. --John (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Echo John. Ignore it, and if there's a problem ask John or HJ, and my suggestion would be to do that via e-mail. You're on thin ice and certain members of the community will be looking for any opportunity to get you in trouble. Concerns regarding baiting and other editors are likely to be seen negatively by the community no matter how nicely you put it, hence my suggestion for private discussion. For what it's worth I did revert that particular change at Conkers but was reverted myself with a link to where it was discussed at length, with the conclusion being to use the "isles" term. I would have to say that's just one example of what will likely be many with regard to that dispute, and if we are to let you edit articles relating to the geographic area it's a dispute you will run across routinely. The temptation to revert changes to terminology will be extremely high, but you must totally ignore it and let others sort it out. Add me to the list of editors willing to assist you with questions; I already formally mentor Barts1a (talk · contribs) and have no problem helping you. I will warn you though, I'll also be one of the first to support your removal from the project if you go back to the behavior that led to this mess. Neither you nor anyone else can control the behavior of others. The only behavior you can control is your own. Remember that. N419BH 04:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not even slightly tempted to revert that edit. Who is this "community" btw? You make it sound like a hive mind! Sarah777 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Or is it used in the sense that "reliable sources" (also known, in Wiki, as the Western MSM) use the term "the International Community" - when what they actually mean is countries representing the 10% of the human race that resides in the West? We ALL need to examine our use of language. Sarah777 (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic remarks questioned

Is this the community?

Note: I moved this out of the above dialog, not to defend or protect the extremely-capable-of-doing-so-on-her-own Sarah777, but because it is not germane to the discussion. Pun unintended at first, but left in. The initial comment was later stricken by GoodDay. Sswonk (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember, not all Germans were Nazis. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - and remember not all Nazis were Germans. Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay: see sense #2, although this is not a game. Stop it. To John, I am wondering about this type of behavior going forward. Sarah, you spend part of your time weeding out nonsensical, off-topic and useless comments, having already done so with Bastun, GoodDay, MickMac and a few others recently and in the past several months. What can we offer in the way of prevention there? Most here are trying to be helpful about getting you back and avoiding trouble going forward. As with the above restrictions on you, should certain other editors take responsibility to warn themselves, or be warned, off this page from now on? Yeah, I know you can handle it but why even tempt fate? When talk page reverts and re-reverts get going, that's when meltdowns become more likely. I am certain there will be more (borderline GF or not) attempts to provoke responses from you, and I don't think it would be wise to have TPWs redact in your stead. Is discussion on this needed at this time or no? Sswonk (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I happen to prefer that Sarah777's current block be lifted. BTW, you should be letting her defend herself. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think I have asked her a question, not defended her in this instance. I can't take advice from you GoodDay, the overwhelming weight of your comments basically annoy me. And, I think that is true for others. I have left you a note. Sswonk (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Let Sarah777 defend herself. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In response to a request from Bastun on my talk, I am reposting here my response there. I didn't actually write what I wanted above in some measure. I was trying to help get the three, Sarah, Harry and John, to where we are now by helping to avoid distractions. Bastun's comment fell under "off-topic" in that list in my question to her and by some association, to John. To rephrase the question, "given restrictions on you (Sarah), do you think others should be required to avoid your page as well." In the past, I know comments from all three editors I mentioned and others have been an irritant to you, you often simply remove what they post here on sight. Sarah, I was seeking your opinion on what you feel should be done, if anything at all, given we are mostly all of us trying to make it easier for you to edit without conflict going forward. Bastun didn't feel it was "off-topic", I could have added "what you see as nonsensical, etc." but this is starting to give me a headache. Basically, I thought there were and are some editors who might be more careful about the timing and tenor of what they ask you here. Sswonk (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of blocks or bans - so I prefer to just remove provocative stuff posted here rather than specifically ban anyone. I have no permanent enemies - at least for my part. My beef with Bast is that he waded into edit-warring on an article he never edited before in a manner clearly designed to try and provoke me. Sarah777 (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that and feel the same way. I even have a note on my talk page that kind of says I don't care who posts. That answers it. I am going to ask you a hibernoquestion below if you don't mind looking at it before you sign off. Sswonk (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Community reaction

or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

Coexistence and transcendence. Be at one. Find redemption through disco. Peace. Sswonk (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I think this may qualify as taking the proverbial.

Love the black plastic bin-liner she's wearing. Oddly, woke up this morning to the radio playing Maria - a song I used to sing in front of the mirror back at the beginning of time! Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Beginning of time!? You're making me feel old - I was at university when that came out! Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That would make you about....golly gosh...97! Sarah777 (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Re bin-liner, yeah, to say nothing of the Vulture t-shirt. Also worth the view is the woman in the pink slinky sleeves, the unisex toy: It's Slinky, it's Slinky. It's fun for a girl or a boy. Seeking to answer your inquiry in the above caption, I believe I have discovered what must be termed a thought processing visual aid, akin to what might be found in the novel A Clockwork Orange and then the subsequent film (note italics, the right stuff), used to rehabilitate the errant droog Alex DeLarge. The linked device shows an actress, it appears her name is Lene Lovich, depicting "TOTAL-EVIL Sarah", the part of you which needs to be monitored by the community. Don't worry, after watching the film you will feel nothing, and not once have need to ask who the community is again. They are represented by clapping, sincere people on a balcony at around 1:10 minutes of the visual aid, then are found again proclaiming their unity through a parade exercise, around 2:20. As depicted throughout, as "TOTAL-EVIL Sarah" you mendaciously proclaim that the luckiness of 777 is wrong, declare your number to be "one", and later, "two". This is done in an overtly sarcastic, cynical and gaslighting manor by Lovich's depiction. In summary, if you want to remain worried about who the community is, don't watch the visual aid. Otherwise, if you do watch it the community will be here when you get back, and you will be cleansed and you will Know. ;)!! (Speaking of outfits, if I only could I would get you hers, seems more fitting than that bin-liner). Sswonk (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC) A Blondie contemporary, both more than old enough to be your mother. Still, this is how I broke into adulthood among the likes of these squinty femmes. If Thryduulf is 97, then I am nearing singularity.

Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables

This continues the trend of sticking by you, or to you like glue, or tape, Sarah. I can't get out of this page, maybe this is my rabbit hole for late spring. At any rate, I want you to do the 20,000 more edits and then more if you can, and not get you in trouble. Suffice, then, that what I write could be misread and twisted about no matter what by Doktor 97 back there if the trend is going to continue. I'd like it to end, don't need for an apology just end. I am putting this here and maybe that'll keep it safe. Debbie Harry will be 66 next month, and Lene Lovich turned 62 at the end of March. I you know am 50. So when I really was br(e)aking into adulthood, it was more like me and those young lady friends dancing to those women who were a dozen or more years older than us. We also got happy feet -n- squints from Kate Pierson and Cindy Wilson of the B52s, Chrissie Hynde and maybe not so happy feet but lots of other stuff from Lydia Lunch, Nina Hagen and Siouxsie Sioux, more than them however, that is enough right now. Kate Bush was in the mix, now just in with an excellent disc.

Enough star gazing. Here, I looked this up: Wikipedia demographics: Contributors: Males: 86.56% Females: 12.83%. Sourced: sweetie pie: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_General_Survey-Overview_0.3.9.pdf You know, the lesson is being learned by some right here on your page. That is worse than the rates in even the worst countries of the EU ([1]). You also know, and this may be learned by some, that I have been making and keeping you a friend for nearly two years. So, it is not really that spooky that I am sticking around here so much. I like it, you too, so who cares? I am unable, well, here it comes I guess I am able, to say how happy I am that you thanked me above for supporting you as you were blocked. Your thanks, and you, mean a great deal to me. Pass the tissues? No need, just thanks.

One of the things Bielle remarked on earlier was the difficulties of really understanding each other (everyone) on this prehistoric forum system that desperately needs replacement. I have of course written about that before. Well, even a newer system that eliminated (edit conflict)s and allowed people to take their time typing without worrying about getting (edit conflict)s. Still, the internet is full of crap and people who only know how to be knights of the keyboard, jousting and tipping away the night, quaffing high caffeine drinks and scratching hairy spots. So, have fun Mister Herr Doktor 7-stone-less-one, and glad to see you enjoying Sarah's wit. She's a treasure, no doubt and making the scene is going to give you food for thought.

I'd design a barnstar around this but it's non-free and on a blog, may not even last the night. Sswonk (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Another thought

Should you be minded to rejoin the community, I suggest a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, if you haven't already seen it. There's a real problem which needs to be addressed; if you can stay away from the Ireland/UK issue, there are loads of other under-represented minorities to be championed. If you can learn to do it right, you could make a real difference here. This Wikipedia is predominantly edited by white American and British editors and it shows in some areas. What do you think? --John (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Would greatly appreciate your help as soon as this block is lifted:

You are invited to join the Romani WikiProject, an attempt to build and maintain an extensive and neutral database of Romani related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name to the members section of Romani WikiProject.

Hope this invite (to you and others here) isn't seen as taking advantage of your current predicament. RashersTierney (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Where else was it posted? Is someone taking the proverbial? Sarah777 (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a project that I've been involved with for a few years, and post out invitations when the occasion arises to editors I think could help. It was almost retired not so long ago due to greatly reduced activity. Genuinely could do with the help in getting some of the articles beyond their present sorry state. No proverbials, and the invitation is open to all. (Equally, everyone is free not to, and no hard feelings). RashersTierney (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Explaining the Irish patois.....

Sorry in advance. Hell, just American. I am new to this phrase "taking the proverbial". I think it is shorthand for "taking things too literally", based on my google searches and intuition. Is there something implied after the phrase, like "taking the proverbial walk in the park", if you can help a poor fellow understand, I will be grateful. Sswonk (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Read locally as 'taking the mickey', perhaps. RashersTierney (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Link read. Makes no sense to me really. I hesitate to ask of course as it is just a quick conversation between you and her, but I am born curious. Take the proverbial what? What proverbial? I will continue to make a fool of myself and ask, I'm afraid. Thanks for the initial clue. Sswonk (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And I read it as "Taking the piss". Shows us why we cannot assume what someone means, especially if the assumption shows bad faith (not that I am suggesting there has been any bad faith here). Bielle (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC) And perhaps I should also have explained that "taking the piss" means "having me on" or, possibly, in this case, "baiting me". Bielle (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Perhaps even "Is this a joke?" Bielle (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly Bielle! I refrained from using the urological term for fear it might be construed by a non-Irish Admin as "incivility"! Sarah777 (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am totally, completely lost here. What does taking a piss have to do with proverbs, or joining the Romani project, is it like "Taking the proverbial piss" but leaving the end off? Help. Seriously, Rashers says "No proverbials." Maybe we are talking in parallel here. How about, "taking the wind out of my sails", that is what I thought for a time. Sswonk (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah, you might consider putting that Hiberno-English tag back up :- ) RashersTierney (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am totally, completely lost here. What does taking a piss have to do with proverbs, or joining the Romani project, is it like "Taking the proverbial piss" but leaving the end off? Help. Seriously, Rashers says "No proverbials." Maybe we are talking in parallel here. How about, "taking the wind out of my sails", that is what I thought for a time. Sswonk (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Can't find any now, but I'm sure I have snuck "taking the proverbial" in that context mentioned above into edit summaries when hitting a really obvious hoax article. The phrase even has an article :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Steve, that this diagram may help you understand.....:) Sarah777 (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As Clouseau might say, the problem is solv-ed. Thanks all. I am in stitches with the anatomy class, BTW. Nice. Sswonk (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In our next lesson in this class on Hiberno-English words and phrases, we shall be covering the etymology of this noble word of antiquity. OK, that's me off for my 5.5 hours in the sack.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ditto - I'm knackered. 01:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Banter aside, even the occasional look in on related articles would be appreciated. RashersTierney (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes by all means. I enjoy learning and the talk, and don't wish to distract you from the serious request and suggestions above about avenues to pursue from John and Rashers. I think both are great ideas. It is difficult but rewarding to improve or write articles based on hours of looking for sources. It helps add purpose and keep the battlegrounds of the past in the past, it will be worth the effort. I have been several months at mid-1960s San Francisco music, something I enjoy but didn't live through, and it has given me some more great music to relax with. Also the Ireland articles are all literally concerning foreign territory, but I do assist and learn along the way. A few authors you enjoy, some art history, other areas may provide the spark. Seeing if the Romani articles need tidying, you may decide to write one, who knows? Entirely up to you of course, we are only trying to help you to avoid the past messes. About 35 of my last 50 edits were here on your page, it looks spooky, but so what, it has been worth it, no question. Thanks and good luck. Sswonk (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Casual use of vulgarities is a feature of speech everywhere, and Ireland is no exception. In Ireland, people vary their use of language by omitting the actual vulgarity and by gesturing towards it indirectly by referring instead to the "proverbial" vulgarity. Proverbs are very well known, and so are habitual vulgarities, so an Irish person mentioning the "proverbial" means "the well known".

Examples:

• I kicked him in the bollocks — I kicked him in the proverbials.
• Stick it up your arsehole — Stick it up your proverbial.
• Is someone taking the piss? — Is someone taking the proverbial?

In each case, the Irish listener knows what the omitted word is because the phrase is so well known, so this is what is understood:

• I kicked him in the proverbial bollocks.
• Stick it up your proverbial arse.
• Is someone taking the proverbial piss?

"Taking the piss" or "taking the mickey" means teasing, baiting, joking, satirising, jeering, mocking, and fooling around, depending on the context. In other contexts, "mickey" means "penis", as in the well known phrase, "Zip up your mickey."

(Hope to see you back soon, Sarah777.) — O'Dea (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That is enlightening O'Dea. It confirms something I thought might be true, that when the word proverbial is used that way it isn't always about piss. Sswonk (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm back already! Much to the delight of some of many of the male Anglo demographic that dominates Wiki :) Apparently (per Sswonk) this tiny minority (in global terms) constitutes nearly 90% of Wiki editors - no wonder the project reads like a cross between the Daily Mail and Fox News - supported by "reliable" sources, of course. And reliable Admins. If you know what I mean. Sarah777 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You got my angle though? I wasn't turning it around politically that way, my point was about workforce norms. That is, even in the "worst" meaning "most male dominated" work populations in the EU (Malta, Italy) the gender ratio isn't nearly as bad as 87/13 percent male. In the United States, it is roughly 82 million men to 72 million women or about 53/47 percent. Of course I get your message "writ large" that Anglo males still do dominate corporations, finance, the military-industrial complex and to a lesser degree legislative bodies in many societies represented here (not yours, obviously). Speaking just about gender: there is no reason for Wikipedia to have such a terrible ratio. Other facets of the internet where artists and writers figure prominently have many strong female voices. Taken as a workforce especially, the ratio here is grossly tilted. I contend that is partly attributable to the admin system and is also perpetuated by it; because of the "tone" and "methods" used to create guidelines and form conversations, men and boys end up talking amongst themselves here. It is the ambience or tenor of how things work, and what attracts new editors, that is flawed. I can't provided sources for that contention unfortunately. Maybe I could work in "the source for my statement is proverbial". Well, I am hoping you see the seriousness and how I see this has shaped your experience to a degree, and that this poor ratio makes me angry enough to question what exactly the reasons are. You of course have had scrapes that have nothing to do with gender on the surface. Still, I am sure you have seen good people, men and women, get disillusioned here by the atmosphere and to me the one thing I keep seeing, in different visions, is that this is like a boys club. And that it sucks. And I am really not happy at this point. Don't be surprised if ten guys and a woman now jump up like mushrooms and say "Sarah is not discriminated against because she's a woman! blah blah blah." I tell you, it is nearly impossible to explain things in this venue. I trust you to understand and provide your perspective. Sswonk (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Ireland project failure

Could someone ask someone at the Irl Project page (which I can no longer visit) why the article register update at HERE isn't listing the updates anymore? Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Seems like the bot that updates the page, User:WP 1.0 bot, is having problems according to a couple of posts here. Quite a few Wikiprojects affected, by the looks of it, but they are trying to fix it. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

According to this diff dated June 1 & 2 at least the statistics are being updated even if the quality log is not. Hopefully it is temporary. However, User:AlexNewArtBot/IrelandSearchResult can be a useful page if one wants to review and/or assess new articles that may have anything to do with Ireland. ww2censor (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this indicates Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ireland articles by quality log it is fixed. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It does indeed - thanks Ww. Sarah777 (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Lusk Services

Hi Sarah, just thought I'd comment on your edit/classification on the Lusk Services talk page, it isn't a commercial. I created it when the services opened late last year, but as I live no where near it, am unable to get non-licensed pictures of it. Page was created because it is of some importance just as many services in GB. Feel free if you're ever near it to take a couple of shots =] --NorthernCounties (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just asking! Wasn't sure. Will snap if passing. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Another barn star

I have awarded myself this barn star:

For truth-telling

The Kaiser's new clothes, for truth telling? I assume you wan't a response - mine is that it's not very subtle, and I'm and I'm not sure you quite deserve one right now. You have just got off an indefinite block after all. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's from The Emperor's New Clothes: "An Emperor who cares for nothing but his appearance and attire hires two tailors who promise him the finest suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "just hopelessly stupid". The Emperor cannot see the cloth himself, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing unfit for his position or stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they mime dressing him and the Emperor then marches in procession before his subjects, who play along with the pretense. Suddenly, a child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretense, blurts out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is taken up by others. The Emperor cringes, suspecting the assertion is true, but holds himself up proudly and continues the procession." Though an evil communist postal service issued the artwork for a stamp in 1975, it is still a nice drawing. As far as my opinion goes, the pathetic scold here and my response ends the Bad Faith parade before it begins. It's a celebration of her own honesty and faithfulness to herself, the fact that it has a Deutsch illustration is kinda in the realm of irrelevant. Truth-Telling Boy Barnstar is the title of the image. I love it. Congratulations! Truth telling Woman! Sswonk (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC

Hey, just a bit of friendly advice from someone who's been a serious critic and no flatterer (well maybe a little in the ANI - but don't go forgetting the hole she was in, will you?) She could find herself back in trouble any time if she doesn't keep away from the supposedly 'systemic negative British bias' re UK/IRE issues. I'm going to keep out of here anyway - there are plenty around giving advice, and it usually just ends in the best advice getting lost. I find the provocation thing a potential disaster - as it's impossible to find who started it, and Sarah is supposed to ignore this stuff anyway. I don't remember her ever having a history of being provoked to be honest - it was more the other way around with the things I personally remember. I don't think admin have given the best advice re this - but hopefully things can and will die down. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Matt, it started with her comments about the UK flag in the British English template which was added by someone onto a few Ireland articles - unfortunately for Sarah she never pointed out what Ireland articles. If it was Northern Ireland articles then she had no case and was simply being provocative for the sake of it. If it was RoI articles - well she had a case but should of went about it without being so provocative and insulting. Also unfortunately Sarah never seems to make a clear distinction between the island of Ireland and what she considers to be "sovereign Ireland" which also didn't help matters when she tried to make her arguement on the template and flag issue. But lets let that issue die in the archives now.

Anyways, if she can finally control her fingers then fair play to her, but old habits die hard. On the barnstar, all i can say is that honesty and the truth are all in the opinion of the beholder. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No. The truth is out there - just that in some cases it is hard (or impossible) to know what it is. 2+2=4 is "truth by definition". The observations on the nature of 85%+ of Wiki-editors would tend to be in that truth category. Theoretically, honesty is an easier concept to test. Sarah777 (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Truth is actually a very subjective concept. I'm always reminded of a quote from Aneurin Bevan "This is my truth, now tell me yours", popularised by the Mani Street Preachers Album This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours. See also 2 + 2 = 5#Self-evident truth. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you missed the "by definition" bit. If we define 2+2 as 5 then that's what it is. Five would be the new four, so to speak :) Sarah777 (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

County Wicklow navbox

Clare Island....it's out there....

File:Coolafancy.jpg

Cool pic of Coolafancy - nice atmospherics!

The navbox for your home county was in a poor state, probably an accident. A great number of the villages were listed under "Townlands". I believe I have fixed it, and in the process I removed the redlinked Ballycoogue and Manor Kilbride. Navboxes should only contain bluelinked actual articles. This is not always a practice that is followed but it usually is and I for one think it is illogical to have redlinks in a template that is meant strictly for navigation. You started out here on a mission to remove redlinks, meaning by creating articles from them, so I wanted to make sure I gave you the opportunity in this case by mentioning what I did. From my curious mind: the OSI map spells it Ballycoog and it appears there are two Kilbride Kilbrides in C. Wicklow. I would guess the Manor is the giveaway and that we are talking about the one near the N81 and Blessington, not the one on the N11. So, can you take a quick look {{County Wicklow}} and also comment here? Sswonk (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rathdangan is a village, I even took a rather grey photo to prove it! Agree that redlinks and navboxes are about as compatible as pink and green. Sarah777 (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OK then, well there it is now, just past Newtownmountkennedy in the alphabetics. I also added Coolafancy, as a village. Sswonk (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Coolafancy? Hmmm......Sarah777 (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cuil na Fhuiseog. It needs translating, …. Sswonk (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Nook of the lark"? Sarah777 (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In-deed! Make a bold edit, will you? That has to be it, and a beautiful name. Sswonk (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's nearly 4am here in cold windy (6c) Dublin. I was asleep all day. Long story! Sarah777 (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

6c? That's a cool June night. I wonder how that last edit flip happened, you got before me without an ec. Achill is a nice touch here. Sswonk (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a bloody freezin' June night! You can almost see the clouds moving in the photo of Coolafancy. Sarah777 (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And not too many wires. You would call it a wirescape if so. NWS says Quincy's at 14c about average. Sswonk (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

NWS? (I can see dawn dawning thru the window; a cold grey windy dawn). Sarah777 (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

National Weather Service or yours is Met Éireann. That is an odd feeling, then you hear the bakery trucks (if near where they go) and city buses. Dawn though can inspire. Sswonk (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In this 'burb bakery and city buses are a few decibels distant. But the birdsong is cacophonous! I'm going to go out in a while; take it all in....Sarah777 (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Buses start on the main street half a block away at I think 5AM. A stroll sounds great. We have songbirds and seagulls, here near the sea but also the Blue Hills. Luckily don't see pigeons, they prefer Boston. I think also the crows have something to say about that. Sswonk (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No seagulls, unless there is a Easterly storm. Crows, blackbirds, magpies, swallows, robins, cuckoos, fiches, thrushes, wagtails etc; noisy lot this time of the day and year. Sarah777 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wagtails are new to me, unavailable here. Look kind of like a sparrow. Those will flock thirty to fifty at a time and land sideways among the wires of my chain link fence, screaming at the top of their tiny lungs and causing my cats to disrupt furniture and curtains indoors. I am stepping away for a moment Sarah, I'll check back before turning in. Sswonk (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Now, the Government of Ireland are saying Cúl na Fuinse, or "back-hill(?) of the ash tree" with their question inserted as you see. I like the "nook of the lark" somewhat more. They say it is "non-validated". Sswonk (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A humour story

Many people say in response to "How are you?", that they're "fine and dandy". But not me, I'm not both at the same time. Sometimes I'm fine, but not dandy - I'm approaching dandy, nearing dandy, in the vincinty of dandyhood, but just not dandy. Other times, I am indeed dandy, just not fine. One time, for about an hour, in September 1991, I was infact both fine & dandy -- but there was nobody around to ask me how I felt. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Been on the 'shrooms again G'day? Sarah777 (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, sounds more like he's been playing too much Black Oak Arkansas CDs! Jim Dandy to the rescue, Jim Dandy to the rescue, go Jim Dandy gooooooo. BTW, Sarah, that's a lovely pic of Clare Island. My granny was from Mayo.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

One day, my cousin kept banging himself on the head with a hammer. I asked him "why are you doing that?", he responded "I like how it feels, when I stop". GoodDay (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Tell your cousin he takes the songs on Abbey Road just a wee bit too seriously.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Martin Breyer

Hi Sarah. Remember the guy who was adding Martin Breyer to various Irish articles? He came back to reclaim Lambay Island (and the gas-field under it, or something like that) last night, for a short while until someone caught him. You probably have a lot of the previous targets watchlisted, so giving you a heads-up that he is back. Can't find any other edits, but seeing that he was doing it for months until rumbled last time, there's a good chance he will try it again. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 11:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Carney, County Tipperary

You redirected this page to itself. I pointed it where I thought it should go. Thanks Gurch (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Did I?! Carney, County Tipperary would be the correct format. How do I get the page back to that? Sarah777 (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears ALL the places in North Tipp have been moved from Ballyfoo, County Tipp to Ballyfoo, North Tipp. I miss all these profound changes being banned from the Irl Proj page. Sarah777 (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello watchers

Someone moved an article about a Henry Wilson to Sir Henry Wilson, 1st Baronet. I think this is in breach of the Wiki style guidelines and naming rules? I was about to move it when I noticed a host of similar "baronets" have also got "Sir" and suchlike in the article titles. Is this not against the rules? Is a revert bot called for? Sarah777 (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't know either way but Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) got into hot water over moving pages, so recomend that you try adding {{Subst:move}} onto a few and see how it goes. Mtking (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Good Golly Mtking! That tag had a most devastating affect on the article! Which bit of the tag does one use? Does it go on the discussion page or the article page? Sarah777 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

On the Talk page according to Template:Move Mtking (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The instructions for requesting a move appear to be written in an obscure dialect of ancient Geek! I've given it a shot. Sarah777 (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This guy was topped by the IRA! I've decided to find a "Sir" who wasn't involved in "troubles related" matters - might be a safer test case :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Have a chat with User:John about it, see if he thinks it is an issue, for the record I don't think it should be a problem. Mtking (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be best to avoid potential troublesome areas. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I found a different Sir. He never seems to have left Leeds! Sarah777 (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Article ratings

Out of curiousity Sarah777 how exactly are you rating articles? Are you just giving them a general basic rating without checking out their content or under-rating them to a degree?

Reasons why i'm asking is Twescard. At the least it merits a C rating rather than the start rating you gave it, and if it wasn't for the lack of more sources, it could push for a B rating going by here. It would also be helpful if you'd expand on the reasons you have listed it as needing immeidate attention and what kind of infobox it should need. Just marking it down as needing them and not leaving any comments onto what exactly is needed i think is to a degree a tad lazy.

Why don't i rate it myself? As the creater and main contribuator to the article, i would lack impartiality on it. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fastnet Lighthouse - from stub/mid to c/low

:I'm giving them a minimal rating; taking the lowest likely (based on my judgement) for both quality and importance. One exception; per the practice advocated by BrownHairedGirl I will give a "start" rather than a "stub" if the article is borderline. I guess 'needs attention' is a bit lazy; I was trying to plough through a huge backlog (2,000+) that built up over the past year when I was inactive. What I was hoping is that tagging these in a minimalist way would prod the authors and others to think about it - for example User:Nora lives chided me for understating the importance of ancient Gaelic Kings and others; at least it got him focused on the tag. In general the tagging system is not well maintained, despite the huge energy that went into designing it and modifications of it. I'm pretty grim at housekeeping in RL so I'm doing it here instead!

I will take on board your suggestion and expand where I use an "attention needed" tag (though in most cases they are similarly tagged on the article page by someone else already); I notice the tag itself leads to a list of Wiki-wide articles, not the easiest to navigate by someone who wanted to fix the issues.

As for self-rating; sometimes that isn't the worst idea. If you go OTT that can be picked up and changed. But all this works only if people are maintaining the system - and on Irl Proj to say the maintenance is hit-and-miss would be too kind.

Thanks for the suggestions. Sarah777 (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been tempted to self-rate articles i've contibuated to, though i would try to as hard as i could be, leaving anything above C or B to someone else. Though a simple expansion on what exactly needs the immediate attention would help wonders when an article gets tagged with it. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Twescard - Why a "start" not a "C"?

This is borderline; I went for start because there was only one reference, no inline refs; no image or infobox. Otherwise the content is a C. At least, that's how I was looking at it.Sarah777 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say its borderline going by the guidelines for a C: The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. - article has a reference to reliable sources however still has a significant issue in the lack of sources. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing :) Sarah777 (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone rated my latest: Davy Fogel a stub! Now this is a wee bit daft seeing as it has four sections, plus a fairly substantial lead!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Davy is a slam-dunk C - even without the image. Sarah777 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Watch Your House for Ireland

If you want a classic example of a "needs attention" that needs no explanation............Sarah777 (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oooh, I had forgotten that one - I think my brain developed amnesia as a defence mechanism. Definitely no Put 'Em Under Pressure. There might be sources around, although how far they would go might be a problem; it really did get to the top of the charts though, straight in at number 1.[2] But I just want to forget it. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Flower. You don't appear to be implicated in this atrocity! Sarah777 (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think we all deserve some blame for letting that get to number 1. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Did it? I can't say I ever heard the song...Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's out there in Youtube land if you really want to go there; after the World Cup, it disappeared. I don't think I have heard it since '94. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(PS) Ah, just looked it up on Wikipedia. It got to number one in its first week, but it was knocked off the next week by something called Riverdance FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Riverdance I remember! Sarah777 (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the Put' Em Under Pressure article, which needs a bit of work, but what surprised me is that Dearg Doom doesn't have an article. I know, I know, it didn't get to number one anywhere, but surely some rock journalists have written something with big words sometime about it that could be used as a source to make a decent article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Dearg Doom, the old Horslips song? One of those guys works for the Indo or the Herald - I met him recently at a soiree! Sarah777 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Ah, I used to to do soirees when I was a lad. Was it Eamon Carr? Actually according to to the Horslips article, Dearg Doom made it to number one in Germany FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes - it was/is Eamonn Carr. Nice chap. I note he has no article. He should have played junior hurling with his local team! Sarah777 (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah, the guys from Horslips all went on to other things (notable in the Wikipedia sense, IMHO) so somewhere down the line, they should. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, anyone who wrote a song that you can sneak, in the privacy of your own home when nobody is watching, both some sneaky air guitar AND sneaky bodhrán action to, deserve articles on first principles :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

What concensus?

The one on Wikiproject Ireland. Remember the 5 options? None of them were per your reversions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Link please. Sarah777 (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit

Sarah, I would ask you to review this edit in light of your editing agreement and consider if you might wish to revert it as it would seem to run contra to "No changing names or participation in discussions about names in topics that relate to UK or Ireland, broadly construed". Mtking (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"No changing names or participation in discussions about names in topics that relate to UK or Ireland, broadly construed". But I didn't change any name. I changed the lead to what I thought was the consensus and I am getting no link to where an "alternative consensus" might be. Maybe you have one? Sarah777 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no opinion on the correctness either way, save perhaps Laurel Lodged's wording might be a little clear to someone who does not live on the island, but I don't have strong enough to edit the article one way or the other, but I do think that it is covered by the spirit of your editing agreement. I will however leave it at that. Mtking (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The archived discussion

It was this one. But, I don't see any consensus other than Idea 3, which had the most support/least objections. Laurel offered Idea 5 which did not really gain any consensus. I am still reading the thread however. Sswonk (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've read it. There was a complete stop in discussion and no declared consensus. Idea 3 appeared to be the choice that even you and Bastun could agree on. Idea 3 did not look like what Laurel added to the Co. Galway lead. The words "Republic of Ireland" were not used. I hope you aren't offended by the following, but to Mtking's observation I would add: for a variety of reasons, to keep you in good standing all around this is probably an example of something you should try to avoid and rather give to John to review. You have handled this at this time and weathered it, but there is just too much at stake over these (minor to most outside authorities) wording issues; for you to sacrifice your editing career over this would be tragic. I keep thinking of the phrase moth to a flame. Sswonk (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So, you are saying that there is no consensus? That might explain the failure of anyone to provide a link. Night all. Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

That is what I am saying. And ultimately, there does not really need to be one except for the back and forth between, as Laurel puts it, "the two camps". I have asked who the camps are and didn't get an answer. To my thinking, the good writing camp would be the one I'd want to be in. Saying things elegantly and saying things correctly appear to be semi-mutually-exclusive states in the world of the Counties of Ireland. I wish I could explain what I mean better here for you as well. For now, good night. Sswonk (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought there was consensus? I think everyone who expressed a preference could accept Option 3, apart from GoodDay, who as usual went for something different, with a one-liner expression of preference with no rationale, so as to prolong debate. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Bastun, see the comment I left at your talk page. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Bastun, are you saying (a) there is or (b) there isn't - consensus as claimed by LL in his/her reverts? Sarah777 (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying there is consensus for option 3. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sir John Barran, 1st Baronet

• (cur | prev) 16:02, 12 June 2011 Tryde (talk | contribs) (310 bytes) (removed nonsense tag - the article is named in accordance with naming policies) (rollback | undo)
• (cur | prev) 11:37, 12 June 2011 Sarah777 (talk | contribs) (343 bytes) (c) (undo)

Well, my attempt to follow the rules, be polite and so forth met with this response. I imagine that if I removed a legitimate tag with this comment I'd be blocked by now. Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So watchers - Any comment on this? No? Cat got yer tongues? Sarah777 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I should have Watched the page - I have re-inserted the tag the discussion on the naming policy should happen. Mtking (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Mtking. Sarah777 (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)==If you enjoyed the articles on....== Big Dave and the Jackal, take a look at these if you want a few sleepless nights: Billy Hanna, David Alexander Mulholland and John Weir (loyalist).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah Jeanne! Why do you write such superb articles only about those from the dark side? Sarah777 (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What about this guy: Jim Dandy Mangrum? He's not so wicked!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well...depends what you mean by "wicked" :) Sarah777 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah777 please refrain from using terms highlighted in bold such as "dark side" in reference to articles on loyalists, as it can imply that you regard republicans as the "light side", when in reality neither is light but simply dark - and such comments could stoke a bit of tension. If you want it to be as a bit of tongue in cheek, i could easily refute with would you prefer Jeanne write superb articles on those from the darker side? Yet that would also only add tension. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Do I regard republicans as the "light side"? Manifestly, just as I think the sun rises in the East. Hardly controversial? Sarah777 (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think dark side was a reference to loyalists but rather to sinister men in general as she had asked me about doing articles on members of the Irish band, Horslips. In other words, all she was saying was that I should occasionally write about lighter subjects instead of heavies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to defend Sarah777 or second-guess what she meant, which is open to several interpretations. I did say can imply, which means that it can be taken by someone else to mean someone thats not intended which can start a whole hoo-hah, and considering past circumstances, a little more thought into such ambiguous statements would be best to avoid a hoo-hah. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Indian kebab joint in West Mayo

"Sir" George Richardson

Here's a "Sir" whose article was moved in the correct manual of style direction. Sarah777 (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I still don't agree with the exact disambiguation they gave that article with that move. Whilst he may of been an Indian Army officer for most of his career - he is more known on this island (by those that have even heard of him) for something else entirely. I preferred the full "George Lloyd Reilly Richardson" version - though no doubt it wouldn't show up in the drop-down search list if someone just typed "George Richardson". Mabuska ^(talk) 21:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see "In 1913 he agreed to command the then newly formed Ulster Volunteer Force" - didn't notice that - do I need to find yet another "Sir" ? Sarah777 (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops..this isn't the guy I am trying to move...he was an example of correct naming per MOS. Sarah777 (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I feel a strong urge to post another pic. Sarah777 (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Pamela Churchill Harriman

Hi-You are probably far more familiar with titles and form of addresses invoving British nobility then I would be. Off and on I had been working on the article about Pamela Churchill Harriman. She was born in the UK; however she moved to the US and became a US Citizen in 1971. She married Ambassador Averell Harriman also in 1971. Okay in the Pamela Harriman article there is a title and style section. This gets complicated-as a daughter of a British noble Harriman was known as The Honourable....In 1971 she becomes a US Citizen and in 1993 US Ambassador and was known as the Honorable Pamela Churchill Harriman US Ambassador to France. We are talking about switching from British to American forms of address. Would you please look at the Pamela Harriman article and see if this is correct? I added a citation about the US usage of Honorable. I am not familiar with the British forms of address. Thank you for your help-RFD (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I fear that American usage of titles is something of which I know almost nothing! My only involvement in this is that the use of the title "Sir" in biography article titles seems to run counter to Wiki MOS. Sarah777 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your response-RFD (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of photos....

The comments with this pic claim the station is no longer in use. Who'd have thunk! Sarah777 (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Keem Bay

Hey Sarah funny to see your newest talk section is about photos, because I've just uploadeda pic of Achill you may recognise. TheEditor888 20:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoghan888 (talk • contribs)

You really need to do something about that signature! Sarah777 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this shot proves it's the camera - not the photographer that counts :) Sarah777 (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Now here's a brilliant idea! Why not add the photo of the Keem Bay the the Keem Bay stub? (Now, why didn't you think of that...) Sarah777 (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

River Shannon

Howdy Sarah. Recommend you follow my example & stay clear of that article's discussion. It's just another British Isles dispute. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. I have not commented of the use of the term "BI". Sarah777 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Trust my nose, I smell trouble there, British/Irish trouble. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Dunno about your nose, but I trust my eyes! Sarah777 (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll refer it to a higher court Sarah777 (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mentor! (and Watchers)

We need an opinion on this Shannon thingy. Sarah777 (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well hello there Sarah, it's your guardian angel here. I've reviewed that matter, you haven't done anything wrong, but you might want to be careful not to take it any further. Did you get my email (on a different matter)? --John (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check - I'm hopeless at reading my gmail email! Sarah777 (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I also think your 2c's worth was fine (even if I disagree with your point. BTW I said Year 9 (as in 13/14 year old) not 9 year old) but do be careful as getting involved in some of the discussions on the page could see you in hot water. Mtking (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool

A day in the Park by Pete Souza

Here's lookin' at you!

The US Govt puts these in the public domain. Sarah777 (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah, a pity you weren't at the Queen's wreath-laying ceremony at the War Memorial. That way you could have snapped photos of the UDA brigadiers and uploaded them to Commons. I need free images for articles!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Snap away at the Short Strand interface; no shortage of photo-ops for UVF copy-free images. Just mind how you go! RashersTierney (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And whilst your at it get some of the republicans involved as well. Don't want any bias now do we? Mabuska ^(talk) 10:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My camera would stage a shutter-down! Sarah777 (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Mary McAleese doesn't appear to have a problem with some of them.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I speak only for myself. Sarah777 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of cameras, what model of camera do you use? Your photographic results are enviably excellent. I adore taking pics but have been plagued all my life with owning cameras of shamefully inferior quality.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Canon 400D; a mean machine! Sarah777 (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in the West

You're back

I hadn't realised you were back. Good to see you. Fmph (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Sarah777 (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Something to read for the journey?

I gather you are being encouraged to avoid certain topics but I don't think that's any reason why you shouldn't be able to read things. I have thrown in some information (logs on an old fire?) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#(Once again) What is the real name of Ireland? (The old tunes are the best tunes.) — O'Dea (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm banned from commenting on Wiki Proj Ireland; despite being one of a handful of major contributors. It seems I upset the proponents of the dominant POV, which is against the Wiki-rules. On Wiki, "incivility" or "battling" (or whatever "rule" they concoct next) is removing POV from articles, or expressing views on "talk", that the majority (aka the "consensus" or "the community") dislike. Great system, eh? Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with Wikipedia can be fucking infuriating. It is certainly not the idealistic, daisy-festooned, bubble-blowing, la, la-la, la-la, United Nations of Planetary Wisdom the nuns promised me in Low Babies. Can you still remember the words of The Wikipædia Song from your schooldays? I used to be able to play it on the flageolet to the tune of A Nay-shin Wanst Agin. — O'Dea (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Like the loopy links :) Sarah777 (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)