This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sarah777. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
SirFozzie has suggested that, as a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here.If you have any questions on what it would entail, please do not hesitate to ask SirFozzie on his talk page or via email....Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Stubsensor
Hello Sarah, the stubsensor project is a project that spits out lists of articles that may or may not be too long to be marked as a stub. People review the lists and remove the stub tags from the articles that are mis-tagged. This page has some more directions. Hope that helps! Cheers, NeraneiT/C22:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify a few matters. The Arbitration Committee accepted the case for the express purpose resolving the user conduct issues which have disrupted Great Irish Famine and related articles. As a matter of common practice the behavior of all users who contribute there is scrutinzed; furthermore, you were named as a party by the initiator, SirFozzie (talk·contribs). I would suggest that you consider contributing to the related arbitration pages and refrain from engaging in further personal attacks. Best, Mackensen(talk)02:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Gibraltar
I'm surprised you say you 'support the Spanish claim' when you hardly know anything about the place. Gibraltar was Spanish three hundred years ago, imagine turning back the clock and re-instating territorial boundaries in Europe to that time, not to mention Ireland.
Gibraltar today is a highly developed, self-sufficient, self-governing territory with higher average earnings and a better standard of living than most EU states. Quite why we should 'hand over' our homeland and all the things we have added to it, the new hospital, roads, housing estates etc to a foreign Government, simply because they want it defies reason.
Unlike the situation in Northern Ireland, there is virtually nobody living in Gibratar in favour of such a thing, we recently threw out a 'joint sovereignty' proposal as one wannabe colonial power is one too many and two would be unthinkable.
If you believe in self-determination and freedom of people to govern themselves, its hard to square that off against a 'Spanish reclamation' against the will of the people and the imposition of a foreign state upon the unwilling.
Actually, you are right. I thought this was a Britain v Spain issue, but with Gib heading for independence (am I correct in that?) I would agree they are entitled to it. My comments were partly a reaction to a perception that you were attacking a source just because it was (thought to be!) in Irish. I now withdraw my support for the Spanish claim. That will have them shuddering in Madrid, eh! Regards (Sarah77719:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
Thank you for that, your sin is forgiven. I hope the Spanish do not arrest any Irish registered ships as a result :) --Gibnews21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't be cheeky or I might abandon the cause!
I thought you volunteered ... Yes much better. --Gibnews
Gibraltar heading for independance? Thats a brand new one now. Though if Gibraltar ever did seek and get independance, the British army would possibly have to remain in the territory to prevent a hostile Spanish bid to seize the islands by force like Argentina tried to do with the Falklands. And on swapping one colonial power with another... according to the Gibraltar wikipedia page Gibraltar is now no longer officially a colony of the UK.
On a foriegn language source, you would need to find an English source for any article on the English lanuage section of wikipedia so we all know that the source says what its suppossed to.
I'm sure you're surprised at the welcome at [ArbCom] - nice welcome, I hope your holidays had prepared you for it! I said that it was a bit much to do while you were away, so I'd suggest you speak up now.
Sony, examine your conscience - your Arb.com waffling certainly didn't help my case. But, regardless, the ONE YEAR ban is so outrageous, disproportionate, so nakedly political that, frankly, I don't think it matters a whit what I say and I have no intention of showing the LEAST respect for a "process" that could suggest such a thing for, basically, NOTHING!! So there is little point in reasoning with these people. (Sarah77718:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC))
Sarah, keep it calm and relax, I can't see arbcom agreeing to ban you for 12 months, don't let others wind you up.--padraig20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh Dear...Mackensen actually voted against the 1 year ban though he did seem to find the "genocide" remark provocative per se - maybe I've over emphasised the Peerage thing? Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, what?
Thanks Padraig; but the suggestion that I should be singled out for ANY ban, never mind ONE YEAR on the basis of the evidence presented seemed to me to render the whole process a farce. I can't figure out WHO actually suggested the "remedies". And there was I going to get into notable buildings and "streets of Dublin". And more. So many still-born ideas bubbling in my tiny, but effervescent, little mind. (Sarah77722:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC))
Welcome home Sarah, missed you around here. Just a point, Wikipedia is run by consensus, and not particularly always by what is truth. WP can't afford to lose editors like you, let it blow over, cool! Had a good holiday? -GH01:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back, Sarah (/Eoghan)! Good to see the big stack of edits already :-) After a month of limited editing with work and long weekends (and no progress on Commons due to Firewall), hoping to do more this month too. See you 'round, SeoR11:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Seo. Young (!) Eoghan was in the West today and I told him the route to take back with instructions where to stop etcetera (not the shortest way!) - he got a great haul of pics. So expect some stuff from further west than MY normal patrol. The edits were largely registering/rating the articles listed in Towns of Wicklow/Kildare/Meath - one by one. Bit tedious but it needs to be done; we need to get this stuff organised; I'll try and do a county a day...how'd you like to try your have at it? Maybe a bit illegal but once the basic tags are in place it is really easy for the Rating Committee to find and change them as needed. I'm racing against time here a bit - I'll not bore you with the details. (Sarah77720:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC))
'Welcome. And glad to hear re. the pictures, as images are probably the aspect of Wikipedia needing most work (I understand the issues but there is a reason brightly-pictured World Book outsold Brittanica). And I have more than a hundred of my own ready. I will sign up for the WikiIreland Project, as I gather from the history I should do, then, sure. Looks like adoption of a few simple principles will cover most decisions. In reading the history, I have also seen the issue of racing time mentioned. I hope the guys can find a solution involving not banning! Good luck, SeoR16:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I generally follow the photos. Unless I have a passable one of a place or thing I generally don't start stubs. Also, it's nice to have actually seen the places (especially if they are a bit obscure) that you write about. Even if all you can say is "this is a really nice/grotty little place". This week I came across one heavily signposted village that didn't actually exist. Unless you count graveyards. Spooky." (Sarah77719:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC))
Not aware that I've deleted any Irelandproj tags. Yesterday I added project tags to several Irish related articles (have a glance at my contributions list) and added the project nest to tidy up a bit. This may be the problem - it hides the project banner but just needs a click on the show button. What instances have you found? It would be carelessness and I apologise. BTW, have a look at the discussion on the talk page for Kildare Town - do you have a view? Folks at 13706:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Just checked out Talk:Kildare Town myself. I see you've added a second Irelandproj banner. The original was not deleted: if you click on the "show" buttons, the individual banners are displayed. It's a device to avoid clutter as articles qualify for multiple projects. I'll leave you to tidy up as you see fit, but nests are in fairly common use in Wiki. Folks at 13706:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Ww has pointed that out; my fear is that the nested tags are not being read by the statistics compiler, for whatever reason. Time will tell; if James Joyce does not appear as a FA then we have a problem Houston. (Sarah77711:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC))
See here, this is the programme that updates the list about every 3 days and I think it doesn't read nested tags. Of course we must always allow for the fact that I might be wrong - however unlikely! There is a run due tonight I think. The we'll see if James Joyce passes muster with his neat but nested tag. (Sarah77711:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC))
Can the program that builds the list be amended to read nested tags? There are 2 forms of nesting - I've used the one I've used as it's more visible. Do we know who wrote the program? Folks at 13716:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't know anything about the programme; I suspect it was taken from the Australia Project. (Sarah77717:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC))
Looking at all these low importance stubs and starts I have made some comments HERE on an issue that has, as a bit of a "low-importance" article specialist, been concerning me. It's even keeping me awake at night, fretting. (Sarah77723:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC))
It seems that the assessment of Irish articles has fallen off the radar but recently Flowerpotman, Sarah777 and I have been doing a little work on this as well as actually classifying articles (actually Sarah has done the most work). Anyway, you are listed as a member of the WikiProject hence this post.
The first thing that needs doing is to work on the WikiProject template. Actually there are two templates both of which get recorded by the assessment statistics bot that collects the ratings and creates the listings in the category Category:Ireland articles by quality. The two project templates are {{tl|Irelandproj}} listed on the main project page and {{tl|WikiProject Ireland}} listed on the assessment page—the first allows both quality and importance rating as well as nesting but no reviewer comments, while the second allows quality rating and comments but the importance does not seem to work and comments are not included. This needs to be fixed, so we use one that works fully—can you help?
The next thing is to decide if we just let editors assess as they wish or to create some criteria or guidelines for rating the quality and importance of the Irish articles. Personally I am in favour of some guidelines—some will be easy to decide while others are a little more complex. What do you think?
Some projects make lists of articles for assessment while other go after groups of articles by category. What should we do? A mixture of both by using a "To do list"?
As of the last assessment statistics bot run on Sunday, August 20, only 1462 articles have been tagged, of which 1156 have been assessed for quality but 660 of these have no importance value.
Besides these 1462 there must be hundreds more untagged articles that should be tagged when we get the template issue mentioned above fixed.
We are not bad in our assessments but some projects have all their articles assessed while others are lacking more than we are. We can really use a few active editors to bring assessments to the fore. Please reply on the assessment talk page as to what you can do. Please help out. ww2censor17:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Ireland banner
I think I have sorted the kinks out of the {{WikiProject Ireland}} banner. I have a version on my sandbox although I have to check a few of the categories. I just "nicked" the current WP:Cities banner (which the old {{tl|WikiProject Ireland}} banner was based on). This version has the nested box fix. You might to take the tag from the top of my sandbox and try it on a sandbox page yourself working through the various parameters. I think I might have missed one or two of the categories.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope we won't have to replace the hundreds of articles we've tagged with the old template to keep them "registered"????(Sarah77700:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC))
LOL! Actually I was just adding a PS there when I got edit conflicted. No worries, the code for the new template can be dropped into the old "irelandproj" template as the two switches supported by that, class and importance, are supported by the new one. I suppose the old template can be replaced by a bot someday, but there is no rush and nobody will notice the difference. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Trawling through the lists of articles in the 'Categories' I reckon there could be a thousand "irelandproj" or more out there. (Sarah77700:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC))
(Back after ciggy) Have you ever tried counting the ones you added? :O). There are a couple of options in the new one that might be worth keeping. The "need-image" switch would add an article to a category like (for example) "Ireland articles needing images" (or whatever). The "attention-needed" one, to add articles to a "Ireland articles that are really really bad" category is probably worth keeping too. More things like that can be added.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Several hundred I'd guess - Looking at the Aussie project and assuming the number of Irish Articles per head is the same (probably sound enough) then we'd have a total of over 5,000 articles out there in Wikispace; and at this stage we've located less than 2,000. Like Rome, this will take more than a day to do! (Sarah77719:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC))
I don't have a sandbox thingy so I picked on Talk:Ardclough to give yor new template a workout. Did I do it correctly? Should I use this instead of the old one even though I'm only rating class and importance and only for Irelandproj? (Sarah77720:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC))
That's working. I switched the code for the old {{tl|Irelandproj}} template last night (very very very late last night) for the new code of the {{tl|WikiProject Ireland}}, so they are all working from the same code. You shouldn't be able to tell the difference.
You don't need to turn the nesting on unless there are ... say... three Wikiproject boxes and then you put the {{tl|Irelandproj}} in the nesting box, if it's there. And you don't need to use all the parameters. Apart from the {{Wikiproject Ireland}} bit at the start, it's much the same as the old one. There is a list of what all the parameters do here.
Ah indeed, I have "Watch this page" turned off by default and only add if I really have an interest, but assessing is a great way to increase ones edit count, don't you think!! Talking of stubs, we should really get someone, who knows this stuff, to help us tag all the Ireland stubs with a basic assessment template. ww2censor22:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Can't help with that...but I'm now using the new tag that you are using. Have "watch this page turned on" - only delete from watchlist if it ain't worth watching - the vandals pop up everywhere. (Sarah77722:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
Arranmore
Hi ... three small Irish islands have turned up in the schools list .... great! However when I read two of them there was no mention of a school....?? Curious. Keen to see island school articles ... but Victuallers 21:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Oh .... favourite Islands are "Clear" in Ireland and Lundy Victuallers21:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand that "schools project" tag....it is appearing everywhere, including the islands. It is a bit intrusive I'll admit. (Sarah77721:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
It was your own posting that added the schools project template. Did you by any chance do a copy and paste from a page that contained it and picked up the schools template by error. Look at this edit. ww2censor22:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm...no wonder the tag was following me around everywhere! I copied your new tag from some article talkpage and must have added this to my clipboard. Must hand it to Victuallers for being quick off the mark! (Sarah77723:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
Following a full investigation it appears that Talk:Bull Island was where I picked up the schools tag. Frankly, Ww, I blame you for putting your tag so close to the other one. :)(Sarah77723:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC))
Ok I will accept the responsibility, if you do the cleanup, ok? Actually the tags usually follow one another. I' bring you a new pair of glass when I come to Ireland in 10 days!! ww2censor02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) I am not sure I got them all just those that were on my watchlist, I think. You had better double check. ww2censor15:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I have also removed some of those school tags! Still a few more lurking, based on a glance at this. Good luck, and have fun! Snalwibma16:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:IMG Cherrywood0988.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Has the stat-compiling bot gone on strike? We have no update on progress since 25th August. Us workers need feedback to keep us motivated. (Sarah77721:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC))
I just mentioned this lack of statistics on the assessment talk page. Going back through the records I have seen it take as much as 6-7 days but that seems unusual—however 3 days seems the norm. BTW, where are you living? I will be in west Wicklow. Cheers ww2censor21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah! West Wicklow was where I was formed! Down on the farm; though I'm a Dub since age 14 - and now live in the paradise we call Sandyford! If I told you any more I'd have to shoot you! (Sarah77721:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC))
Ah it's 10:40 in Ireland—I must make a call. I would hardly call Sandyford a paradise what with the industrial estate there. When I am driving by from my son's house in Blackrock on my way to via Brittas to west Wicklow, I will wave at you. Btw I notice that your talk page is references in Category:Ireland articles by quality. You might want to get it out of there. ww2censor22:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Now how did that happen? The Industrial Estate (which isn't) is what makes it paradise! That and the mountains, village, Luas and all the nice people from all over the globe. After Wicklow I was a Blackrockonian - a rather fossilised place these days. All the lively folk headed for the hills! (Sarah77722:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC))
I added the < noinclude > tags to all entries of the category on this page but it is still showing up there, so don't know what is causing it. Apologies—can't figure it out right now. ww2censor04:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
hey sarah any chance you could help keep an eye on my articles about the terms atlantic isles and atlantic Archipelago as people like bastun and mucky duck keep altering then without discussionCaomhan2712:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No Frank, not in the Alps! I've read the Arbcom page. No comment on the verdict as such. To me "good news" would have been dropping the charges. But it appears it isn't my editing style that is causing Arbcom the problem so much as my style of debate on the talk pages. Apparently making "anti-British" comments was the biggest sin in articles dealing with the history of colonialism and genocide by the British in Ireland. Kinda proves the point I was making all along about the Wiki notion of NPOV!
The other offence is "relying on inadequately sourced original research". In the TALK pages. I let you figure that one out! (Leaving aside that in the talk pages of the great Famine atricle I did no such thing).
Maybe it's over for a while; but somehow the words of Dylan Thomas spring to mind;
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
I'm sure ArbCom do their best - they don't have limitless amounts of time with such a prolific editor as yourself to put your remarks in context and, like Gaimhreadhan, you do tend to call things as you see them rather than use hive-mind-speak.
We're not allowed to use naughty words like murder and genocide and terrorist - even on talk pages. I wonder if we can use "fascist" on the NSDAP article discussion page?
It's actually a sculpture or 'work of art' - made of wood. Built to celebrate the millennium. Looks like three gigantic totem poles from close up! (Sarah77723:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC))
Progress continues apace; 200 new articles found, 500 assessed and only 53 now unassessed! I'd still estimate there are 5,000 articles in total, so 2,500 still to be located and assessed. Dig in everyone!! (Sarah77720:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
Ballyjamesduff
I added in some more references for Ballyjamesduff. A lot of people think that the town has a lot of jokey stuff, but it's amazingly all true. Cm61914:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just read your reply. Apologies accepted. I'm not sure what links are dead, so if you want to sort that out, you can. That ballyjamesduff.info one is actually pretty much accurate on its information, although a couple of its pictures aren't. Cm61915:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sarah. Please read my comment again; you'll see that I say that you did not cross the line in the discussion - in other words, you did not make any anti-British remarks. Talk about paranoia... calm down! Waggers08:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
OK Waggers...I saw that, I just couldn't square what you said with the "absolute final warning". If I didn't do nuthin' why would I get a warning? Anyway, just 'cos I'm paranoid doesn't mean.......! (Sarah77708:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
Hello Sarah. I just wanted to thank you for your comments at the above page. Though I don't agree with them all, I applaud your efforts and think you provide some much needed perspective. Rockpocket07:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Further to this. I note you and a few other editors has been suggesting that Vk was blocked partly because he was responding to goading from other editors. This is certainly true and is something Vk himself has claimed a few times. However, what you may not be aware is that, as recently as this week Vk appears to have sent an email to another participant in this case, goading them in a celebratory tone because of evidence produced against them. I have seen the content of this email. Honestly, I feel like hitting my head against a brick wall here, why on earth would anyone - who has spent that last month claiming he was goaded into bad behaviour - do exactly the same thing himself. I'm beginning to think there is some incredibly complex conspiracy that is going on to set up Vk and i'm not in on it, because i'm really finding it difficult to understand how anyone could be so utterly stupid and self destructive. Rockpocket08:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
After last night's developments I can assure you that you aren't the only one wondering what the heck is really going on. (Sarah77708:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
Hi Sarah. I'm reply here to your recent comment about Fred Bauder (because my presence on Vk's talkpage is not welcome, and I don't wish to agitate him further). I just wanted to note that Fred Bauder is just one member of ArbCom, his opinion doesn't acount for much in isolation and it certainly doesn't amount to a pre-judgement by the committee. In his defence, I think his comments were in response to a query about the scope of the case. He has been quite open from the very beginning that he (personally) is not interested in reviewing Vk's block, so I'm not entirely sure why there is a large uproar over his latest comment. Its not that he is pre-judging, he is simply not inclined to review the case. That is his right. That all said, I'm not sure him coming to Vk's talkpage is particularly productive. But neither was Giano's rather hyperbolic response. I'm beginning to think of these bursts of indignation on Vk's page like buses, there will always be another one to jump on before too long. Rockpocket23:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, saw Fred's comments, was a bit annoyed, not too much, but I partially agreed agreed with Gino. I wouldn't have bothered commenting till Frank implied that Gino even expressing such thoughts (which I mildly) shared) should lead to Gino being sanctioned. That was what brought down the red mist. I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about Wiki's view of NPOV and their method of defending it - we'll never agree on that I fear. I am now fully recovered and am seriously thinkinmg of creating an article on the R666, seems spookily appropriate with what seems to be going on out there! Regards (Sarah77723:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
I understand. The worst thing once can do in response to an outburst like Giano's is to do what Frank did. If Fred Bauder was a lawyer for all those years, I'm sure he has been called a lot worse! You may not believe me but my personal opinion about NPOV bias is not so different than yours and I understand why it bothers you. I recognise the inherent problem, and it bothers me too, especially on issues I feel strongly about. However, I don't know how we combat it and maintain WP:V also. Maybe it will change, but for better or worse, thats the way the policies work at the moment and as an admin It is my job to uphold those policies, not change them. What fascinates me the most about this, is the suggestion that an attempt to hold editors to policy is automatially POV bias in favour of the "other side". Its entirely illogical, because both sides make the same allegations. How is that even possible unless one is doings one's best to fuck with everyone!!
Such endemically strong national bias is near impossible to overcome. Let me give you an example. Pretty much every Irish editors in this has just assumed that I am British. Indeed, Thepiper used it as the basis of his evidence against me at ArbCom, and amazingly people joined in the argument ("not relevent" / "yes it is") without even bothering to check whether it is even correct! Isn't that amazing? I thought about correcting them, but whats the point? If I did reveal what nationality I was, people would just say "well the fact we assumed he was British had no effect on judging him in the first place, so it does matter." Except it did of course, because it allowed them to reason that I am promoting a POV, therefore convince themselves their position is neutral. This is why the only way this is going to get solved is by dealing with the people. They people are not going to change, its gone too far for that. The problem I think we agree on, its the solution that perhaps we never will. Rockpocket02:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh God no no no!! Never. At least that's what all the Wiki folk tell me; seems you don't use them for expressions like "in the 1800's" though you do say "take three 14's and add ....".
I'll consult my Eats, shoots, and leaves. Though I'm sure there is a Wiki manual of style on this; they have rules for absolutely everything on Wiki. Probably something to do with the 14's being plural and the fact there was only one 1800s. (Sarah77717:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
It's purely stylistic for numbers in general—I'm not sure about for centuries as a specific case. I would go by the fact that the article name is 1800s—without the apostrophe. I personally prefer the non-apostrophe'd version in all cases and would only use an apostrophe'd plural or a lowercase letter (e.g., "there are two t's in letter"). Consistency should rule though. —Rory☺19:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Mullingar
Depending upon your computer video <<monitoring definition>> you will identify that certain graphics over lap.
In order to confirm that such alterations remain correct for other monitor display definitions, it is always useful to visit the same modified page with or from another computer with different video configurations.
In other words, just because it appears reasonable upon your configuration, it does not follow that everyone viewing a given page posesses the identical configuration to yours.
OK, now I know what you talkin' about. "In order to confirm that such alterations remain correct for other monitor display definitions it is always useful to visit the same modified page with or from another computer with different video configurations". You must be Joe King! If it don't work on my monitor I sez it don't work. (Sarah77719:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC))
Days & Dates
Hi, Sarah777. Thanks for the kind comments. My normal practice is to link dates as I actually find it useful for context when reading articles myself. Linking takes the reader to the date year in question and helps put the article it appears in in time context for the reader. The MOS actually backs this up - I quote: "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." My linking assumes the deepening of readers understanding for the reasons above. Hope this helps. Ardfern19:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
He happens to be my bird! He is not a guy but a multicolured Sicilian love bird by the name of Spumoni and he gets very sad if he is parted from my goat Cecilia for too long. So look after him well. Giano13:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Well G, what I did was added a picture of the village square and standardised the rest, none of which were of the village per se. While I can see all the pics on my screen now - they are all different sizes; I know where I've put several pics into one article other editors often relegated them to a gallery. As this can be a rather sensitive and subjective issue I use a few rules of thumb:
never replace someone else's image with one of my own unless it is very transparently better in terms of relevance to the article or the technical quality of the existing pic is very poor.
indeed, never replace any image with another one unless the new one is clearly better.
Pictures on the right look much neater if they are the same width as the infobox.
If there are a lot of pictures on the right beneath an infobox, keep them all the same size
If an article contains very little (doesn't fill a screen) then I am OK with big bright pictures till/if the article expands.
As I understand it, anything purely geographical doesn't necessarily need citation (although latitude and longitude are helpful). This article contains quite a bit of non-geographical information that would need citations. Erechtheus21:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I just noticed this:
"It also has the oldest house in South County Dublin, The Old Glebe House. This is the place where Johnathan Swift went to stay with the Reverend who lived in the house, and where it's been suggested that he wrote some of his Gulliver's Travels."
In fact I just noticed it 'cos it has just been added - after your tag! I guess the tag was a kind of premonition. (Sarah77721:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC))
Actually, my decision to add the template was made when I read "affluent suburb". You're definitely right that the above section would also be non-geographic. Erechtheus21:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I will be back tagging WP Ireland articles again. At the moment I am sort of dropping on Wikipedia for a few minutes while I am doing something else (to take my mind off the something else :O) ), but I should be back to normal at the end of the week. Just feeling guilty as I watched a few of your tags pop up on Recent Changes :O) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Working my way through 'Irish Buildings and Structures right' now. Can't but help notice that unless it is in ruins the Irish Wikipedian doesn't seem to rate a building. (Mind you, I tend to stick to the megalithic stuff myself!)(Sarah77723:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC))
Yep. I've done maybe 100 in the past hour and no more than half a dozen are better than "stub". You'd think that third level institutions or theatres would have a decent B class articles - in fact the secondary schools are generally much better. (Sarah77723:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC))
Cool about the "mid." And yeah, I'd reckon the same thing about an A-class -- should probably be regardless of project, unless a mistake has been made. Don't think it has though! I'm going to go for FA soon probably anyway though. --Melty girl21:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you editing that article while patrolling recent changes. I see you edit Irish geography-related articles. Are you editing any articles that have place-names in them??
I'm free to help out with any articles on Irish roads, geography and place-names if you want! Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you wish to discuss it further. --Solumeirastalk11:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I can design an infobox for Irish roads, not sure when I'll be able to this week, as I'll be on the road most of this week. As for the images, well, I'll use my copy of Paint Shop Pro 7 and create the images.
Thanks Solumeiras. As for PNG v JPG...I'd leave that to you as I have no idea what difference it makes. (You are talking to the technically challenged here!).
I noticed your temporary addition of a "Project Ireland" tag to one of the arbitration pages. I don't know if you are aware, but this issue recently came up in another case, and an arbitrator removed the tags almost immediately, so it's just as well you did the same. Regards, Newyorkbrad12:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep Brad, I had a quick re-think! Mind you, there was truth in the tagging. Wasn't aware of the other case btw. Regards (Sarah77712:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC))
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The article Great Irish Famine is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. Further terms of the mentorship are contained in the decision and will be amplified on the article talkpage. Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. MarkThomas is placed on standard civility supervision for one year. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad21:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The British are not Nazis & I reckon you should leave it at that. Congratulations on making it through the Arb case without being banned indef. It's nice to have you back - Alison☺04:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ali; but I didn't say the British are Nazis. What is simple fact is that the British Empire, as an institution, was much more murderous, evil and destructive than Nazi Germany. Is saying "Hitler killed six million Jews" an anti-German remark? If the price of remaining on Wiki is to pretend that black is white then it simply isn't worth it. 'Cos Black is black, (I want my baby back), it's gray, it's gray since he went away, Ooh-Ooh what can I do? 'Cause I-I-I-I-I'm feelin' blue.....(or maybe not!)(Sarah77708:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
You do so here - "What is an "anti-British remark"!! Imagine being banned from making "anti-Nazi remarks"! " That statement implicitly equates "Nazi" to "British". To be British is a nationality - to be Nazi is a personal choice. You equate the British with the Nazis in a way you differentiate between "German" and Nazi. You gotta stop seeing the world through a conspiracy. If there was no reason for Ireland to support Britain in WW2 there was more than enough reason to support Poland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Greece, etc etc etc. The war was more than just one empire against another. Surely Ireland would have wanted the same in its dark hours? You also claimed elsewhere that the British (people, not state, people) would have been "falling over" themselves to join the SS. Your POV is therefore undeniably anti-British on an ethnic/racial, rather than political, basis and I really cannot see why you pretend otherwise. You hate the people, not the state, or any institution within it 80.169.129.16314:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Ultimately, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. It is entirely unconstructive to creating an quality encyclopaedia for you to offer your subjective opinion that "the British Empire, as an institution, was much more murderous, evil and destructive than Nazi Germany" here. These sorts of comments may be tolerated to some extent on your own talkpage, but ArbCom had made it perfectly clear that stating this elsewhere on Wikipedia will result in a ban from that page. Please respect that. Rockpocket18:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Very nice of you to say that, in context, simple observable fact "may be tolerated on your talk page"! "your subjective opinion [is] that "the British Empire, as an institution, was much more murderous, evil and destructive than Nazi Germany". Actually, that is a very well supported contention, no more subjective than the more common view of Nazi Germany that causes such offence to be compared with.
As for the other person above; my claim that the British would be eager to join the SS in some numbers is also well supported, not least by what happened in other occupied countries, everywhere, throughout history. And I certainly don't see any "conspiracy"; I merely point out facts.
"That statement implicitly equates "Nazi" to "British"." Nope. It merely points to the FACT that the current British State is the direct linear, legal, institutional descendant of the Empire that caused genocide and destruction across the globe. The Germans do not salute the Swastika anymore; they re not members of the State that invaded Poland. The British are, unfortunately, members of the same state that perpetrated the physical and cultural genocide in Ireland and in many other places over hundreds of years.
I don't think that implies any living person has responsibility - other than a responsibility to recognise their own past - as the Germans have done.
If, in the course of the talk on any Irish related article, remarks about Irish "terrorists" and so forth are used liberally, without any objection of threats of sanction - I will not hesitate to respond with equally robust language. It will say a lot about Wiki if only some strong political pov is banned while the equally strong counter arguments pass without comment.
And finally, re Arb.com; the citation repeated the charge of "synthesis" without addressing in any way the objections I raised. Calling the Famine "genocide" is not logically "synthesis"; it is applying a modern word to a situation that matches the dictionary definition. Paedophilia existed in Ancient Greece. It had no negative connotations. Does that mean it would be synthesis to claim that children were allowed to be abused in Athens?
And as for the risible suggestion that we should have rushed to the aid of "Poland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Greece, etc etc etc, -because - Surely Ireland would have wanted the same in its dark hours?" !!! Indeed - and they all rushed to help us in our dark centuries, did they? (Sarah77720:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
Utterly risible actually. But as you know I can't reply I must ask why you keep posting intellectually challanged garbage on my talkpage. Once more and you are blocked, OK? (Sarah77721:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC))
If you wish to discuss the tyranny of the British Empire, I suggest you find a suitable forum to do so. If you have reliable sources to back up your claims, them add the to the appropriate articles. Other individuals who may use the word "terrorist" are not subject to ArbCom mediated sanction (yet), you are. You can "respond with equally robust language" should you wish, but the consequences have been made clear to you. Good day. Rockpocket20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no wish to discuss the British Empire here atall atall. I am responding to a post by you and to a vicious personal attack by
80.169.129.163 (which didn't merit any comment from you). So, if you don't wish to have a debate about the Empire on Wiki, I must suggest that it might help not to start one. OK? And yes, the people using highly charged and racist comments about Ireland/the Irish are not before Arbcom. You think this has escaped my notice? I'd think it makes my point about NPOV and Wiki. (Sarah77720:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
If you have evidence to submit to ArbCom about the Troubles then please do so. People don't magically appear before ArbCom, it takes someone else to provide the evidence. You may note that I have provided evidence of one sockpuppet I am aware of that used the word "terrorist" in relation to Irish editors. If you have more examples of them, then please offer them yourself, or direct my attention to them and I will provide the evidence. However, what is entirely unconstructive is moaning about it when you are unwilling to be pro-active in helping us solve the problem. Rockpocket21:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that like the user who accused my of harbouring racist/ethnic hatred for the good folk who live in the UK (including family) often use no names most of the time. So the "regular" editors get the flak. This is an argument for some form of registration - which is badly needed IMO. I mean, getting banned from editing an Encyclopaedia that 'anyone can edit' is a bit surreal. (Sarah77721:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
Hi Sarah. That isn't going to help, I'm afraid, as the same person appears to be editing from multiple IPs. My suggestion is that, if he or she continues to engage you in debate here, simply make one post making it clear you do not welcome their presence on your talkpage on this matter, then remove any further posts they make while shunning them. If he or she continues to post after you have made it clear they are not welcome I can semi-protect your page for a while. Rockpocket02:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Major. I have just this instant found myself drifting into a sharp exchange with Astrotrain and your kind words have made me reconsider my approach! Regards (Sarah77710:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC))
Ha, ha - O dear! You won't find me getting involved, I'm afraid (see here). Remember what the Good Book says: A soft word turneth away wrath. Keep up the good work!--Major Bonkers(talk)19:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Inver
Actually, that's not what I was speaking of (though that's certainly a good catch -- that wouldn't be geographic in nature). I think you can say it's a place with a road, but when you identify the road, that becomes a fact for which a reference would be necessary. Erechtheus03:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reference within that article that establishes the fact we're speaking of? If so, I'd suggest that ideally it should also be cited in this article. Having said all of that, I'm not planning on edit warring over this point. I'm moving on. If you really think this is fine the way it is, I'm okay with that. Erechtheus03:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
No internal link for 'll? You're slipping. Ha ha. It has been nice chatting with you, and I imagine we might bump into one another again in my new page patrolling. Erechtheus03:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Well spotted
On the removal of the agreement of the Ireland linking. Never noticed that as I was busy at the time the edit was made so never noticed it on my watchlist. I'm surprised no one else noticed it before either. But well spotted in any case. Ben W Belltalk11:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Your messages
Hi Sarah. I'm sorry I have been unable to respond to your messages on my talk page, I had to take a trip away at very short notice and have not had access to an internet connection for social use for almost a week. I just arrived home this evening, I will go through your messages as soon as I can. Rockpocket02:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
List of towns in the Republic of Ireland
Hi Sarah, you have noticed that I have been adding a link in pages of "towns" listed in List of towns in the Republic of Ireland. I know some of them are cities, some villages or townlands, but if they are listed in the "List of towns in the Republic of Ireland" page, are they not entitled to a link to a page where they are mentioned? Otherwise should there be separate new pages of Irish "towns", "cities", "villages" etc. (as in Northern Ireland for instance)? Peter Clarke09:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC) p.s. I've noticed a lot of your edits on my travels around Wikipedia!
Peter, the List of towns in the Republic of Ireland is taken (informally amongst a small group of regular geo-editors) to include cities, towns, villages and hamlets (indicator; standard Local Authority (as distinct from local) signposts, urban speed limits and being marked on roadmaps). Townlands have a separate set of county-based categories; specifically to cater for them, developed by User:Ardfern. So rather then just see if a place appears in the list which you are (very usefully) adding to all "settlement" articles a place should be judged on its merits. (In many cases townlands are added to the list first, and then the stub or article created). You are probably working off the list; so best thing if you find a place which is stated to be a townland or is clearly not a village is to remove it from the list and re-categorise under Category:Townlands of X (where X is a county). Hope this is clear enough to help you! Regards, and please keep up the good work - (Sarah77709:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC))
IMOS
I can't find any coherent discussion about that paragraph's addition. Creating the "impression that Ireland is one state" is surely fantasy to all except the most hardline British nationalists.
Seeing as this discussion started here I will add my 2c worth. This naming section was added in May 2006 and discussed in detail in February 2007 with no consensus to remove or change and it was Lapsed Pacifist who removed it in August without any discussion. That removal seems to have slipped under the wire but was restored and should not be removed without discussion. The IMOS is quite clear on the naming and its use as suggested allows all users to understand the differences between Ireland, the stare and Ireland, the island. ww2censor14:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The "naming section" existed for nine months before it was discussed? "...no consensus to remove or change..." Was there consensus to add it? Yes, I removed the offending paragraph, and gave my reasons why in the edit summary. "...was restored and should not be removed without discussion..." On the contrary, it should be removed and not restored without discussion. The IMOS is far from clear at the moment. Ireland is not a state. Creating misleading links will only add to existing confusion.
The section was put in the IMOS before my time, as they say. The difficulty with just removing it is that Ireland is in fact a state, as well as the island. So we'd have endless reverting between RoI and Ireland in 26 county articles. I for one would use simply "Ireland" for any article about any place on the island - some British Nationalists might have a problem with that! I was in the wars over this six months ago and don't want to go through it again, the compromise is grudgingly accepted until we rename the RoI article to simply Ireland. Which may well happen. Someday. Maybe. (Sarah77717:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC))
Where was this compromise reached? Ireland's not a state, it's made up of one and part of another. Why should we be compelled to use the name of the state in the south and west of Ireland when the subject matter is apolitical? Why is the name of the state not used in the northeast at all, but a regional name of that state? It stinks of biased inconsistency.
I think you have been told several times that "Ireland" is the name of a state. Folk have even said rude things to you, and I used to wonder why. (Sarah77713:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC))
Ireland is not a state. No matter who or how many people decide to refer to the Republic of Ireland as "Ireland", that fact remains. If folk cease saying rude things to me, I shall start wondering why.
With his credibility shot and himself badly bruised from the experience, the Messiah has chosen to stay away from those 'politically charged' discussions (and he's an atheist). You guys play too rough. GoodDay22:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
You have good eyes (may God always bless them) for a good clichée or photo-shot: This transpires through your work!
I for one appreciate many....
There are some however that you have included that even though beautiful appear not sufficientally representative, of the commune village, town that you attempt to represent with your imposed clichée. c.a.d. Monasterevin, that place in Offaly Geashill, just to mention two. They are and remain well take shots...
Are you in measure to take one board my remark...with the intent behind it?
Thanks Gav - not sure what you mean by "imposed cliche"; normally snap whatever appears on the road of approach, Monasterevin being a good example - this is what you see from the old main road, warts, wires and all. Geashill is a bit of 'eye-candy' I grant, but the triangular village green is what dominates as you drive through. Also learned two things; (1) if the photo is very unflattering it will attract aggro from a local no matter how 'representative' and (2) "arty" photos are unencyclopedic. And I'd add (3) that technically bad (blurred, overexposed etc) pics should be terminated on sight! Look at the photos of Longford, technically fine; depending on your view could be taken as representative - but are they a form of trolling? I'd say some natives might have a different perspective. (Sarah77718:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC))
Actually took a quick peep at Longford and someone has removed a few of the very representative photos! The edit comment was "vandalism in sheep's clothing" - these are two of four similar removed: Breaden's Lane - One of Longford's retail arcadesThe Market Square In the heart of Longford Town(Sarah77718:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC))
Hmm, I'm not sure I understood excactly what concerns Gavigan are expressing above... Anyways, I came here to add a very different general remarks on photos: Is there any reason why you upload your images locally at en:wiki instead of using Commons, Sarah? I just copied Image:IMG Monasterevin3348c.jpg so that I could include it in no:Monasterevin, never having been there I can't really tell if it's representative or not, but it's still the only image from Monasterevin avvailable under a free license that I've come across. In uploading the image I also changed the name of the image to Image:Monasterevin County Kildare.jpg, prefixes like IMG just confuses things in categories - even though that's currently a not very big problem in Commons:Category:County Kildare which presently contains only six images :o( . Cheers, Finn Rindahl22:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought I understood where Gav was coming from but having looked at some of his photos/substitutions etc in the greater Lough Derravaragh area I can't really figure it! As to Commons - I was waiting for a technical innovation that would let me move them all across with a single click of a button! Still waiting, unless you know something I don't? (Sarah77700:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC))
Adding this to your monobook
importScript('User:Krimpet/CH2.js');
might achieve that (actually, it will be three-four clicks pr image, pluss categories at commons - but still... ;o) Regards, Finn Rindahl10:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Sarah777/monobook.js By default editprotected from anyone else than yourself. For reference, view the source of my monobook where I also have installed pop-ups (which is quite handy for reverting vandalism & getting instant previews). A monobook is just a way to implement some additional javascript-tools that not already included in the general mediawiki-code, DO NOT include anything you're not sure has been tested. The stuff in my book has (but you'll have to take my word for it :P) If you don't feel like entering the javascript-age at wikipedia, I'm planning to look through my Ireland-stubs at no:wiki one of these days, and transferring some images from en: to commons: while doing so will not be to much of an effort for me. Happy editing, Finn Rindahl14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Castles and Mottes
...surely we can find a castle-ona-motte that isn't taken from someone's bedroom window?
No more country specific cats please. This isn't Wikipedia Ireland, its wikipedia english and should have the world view. However adding it to the history cat of all counties that have mottes is futile. As are the other categories. The present cats are much better. And History of Ireland IS part of the History of Britain. You may have forgot it was British until 1949 CJ DUB03:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Republic of Ireland "The state known today as Ireland came into being when 26 of the counties of Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (UK) in 1922. The remaining six counties remained within the UK as Northern Ireland. This action, known as the Partition of Ireland, came about because of complex constitutional developments in the early twentieth century." also "On 21 December 1948, the Republic of Ireland Act declared a republic, with the functions previously given to the Governor-General acting on the behalf of the King given instead to the President of Ireland. The Irish state had remained a member of the then-British Commonwealth after independence until the declaration of a republic on 18 April 1949."
Maybe I missed something, but unless Ireland spontaneously appeared in the Irish Sea in 1922, it was previously part of Britain, and Northern Ireland (the bit at the top there) is STILL part of Britain CJ DUB12:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said - Ireland is not part of Britain. Was occupied for a few centuries. You ain't saying anything different that I can see. Ireland didn't spontaneously appeared in the Irish Sea in 1922; it was there long before "Britain" ever existed. (Sarah77719:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC))
Ww, when you are supporting my stance you are free to butt in! This wee difference of opinion led me to Category:History of Britain, and the thought that, as far as I can see - Britain is neither a legal, political or geographical entity (separate from "Great Britain") and as such should not be a history category at all. Especially when Wiki insists on having a place called the "British Isles". So I've moved to have it deleted, here. (Sarah77720:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC))
Whether you like it or not it is a historical fact that Ireland is part of British History, and NORTHERN IRELAND IS CURRENTLY IN BRITAIN. Do not the Nortehrn Irish claim to be british? Say it ain't so. CJ DUB12:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
But Sarah reverted that edit as it seems to have slipped under the radar. There has been no consensus to remove or replace it, so the current situation is still to use [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] which clearly brings you to the correct article for the state but places the correct and proper English language name of the state in the referring article. This is the constitutional description of the state and is used because there is already an article of the same name for the island). ww2censor22:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed; and as I mentioned on Pat's talk page it looks like someone just removed a whole section of the IMOS at their own initiative. There are other bits I'd like to remove, but we need discussion and consensus, so I'm stuck with them!(Sarah77722:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)).
I will go look at your reply to him now. I know you need to hold back a bit on some of those Ireland matters but for now, keep calm and maybe consensus will come to pass some day, though on this particular issue I would not change it. Anyway, onwards and upwards to 10,000! ww2censor22:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I just want to mention that my objection to these shopping centre articles has very little to do with a sense that shopping malls are "unworthy" of mention. I think that the centres should be mentioned within the Letterkenny article. Other than that, there is nothing particularly special about any of the centres, and I am not sure that there is enough material on any of these centres to warrant an article. The most that can be done is to list the individual stores, which is not the function of wikipedia.
I don't see that this view is so objectionable. Most editors would probably agree that an article on Letterkenny Main Street should likewise be merged into the main Letterkenny article, even though the street is an important centre of commerce for the town itself. Pathless14:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Shopping Centres
We settled arguement on shopping centres in Letterkenny. Going to create article on Shopping in Letterkenny. Do you agree. We are trying to merge other shopping centre articles to new articles. (E.g. Crescent Shopping centre and other shopping centres in limerick merged to shopping in limerick). --Balloholic22:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
As the notability is manifest the onus is clearly on the person proposing the deletion to explain why The Square in Tallaght is not notable. Personally, I have no interest in Shopping Centres per se; only in improving the project and refusing to facilitate prejudice is part of that drive for improvement. (Sarah77714:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC))
B, I have cast my ballot for your proposal. Now it remains for us only to wait and hope. Prayer might also help I guess. Or perhaps some ballot stuffing. (Sarah77719:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC))
Thank you!
Sarah, you must think I'm very rude leaving it so late, but I just wanted to thank you for the barnstar you so kindly gave me. I only just noticed it, because it was on my user page rather than my talk page, hence the delay ... but thank you!
(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
GH 01:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
FA
A
GA
(Sarah777)
