User talk:Sarah777/Archive 24

From the Ireland Collaboration

Well, it was poetic & a tongue twister. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Geograph

Hello, Sarah777. You have new messages at talk:Geograph British Isles.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry MJ - just spotted this now! I am very distracted these days. It's a holiday thingy! Sarah777 (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

List of Robot Chicken episodes

Holy Cow Rock! The quality of the editing here is awesome. I tried to find a stray comma or a misplaced colon but I gave up. Sarah777 (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Position Statement

Please edit your statement at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll_on_Ireland_article_names/Position_statements/Sarah777. Thanks! -- Evertype·✆ 13:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

On Saturday - very busy in RL! Sarah777 (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Time marches on. Deadline is Wednesday. -- Evertype·✆ 12:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I never miss a deadline :)Sarah777 (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You could pretend the deadline was today. ;-) -- Evertype·✆ 08:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I was aiming for 23:00 on 29th - to allow for the vagaries of International Time. Sometimes Wiki-time seems to be an hour ahead of real time - sometimes not. I guess Wiki sets it's clock according to concensus. Sarah777 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Deadline is 21:00 UTC. I really must find out what UTC time is sometime... I presume its not a British imposition, anyway ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

UTC? Never heard of it. Sarah777 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Coordinated Universal Time. BigDunc 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Would that not be CUT? Sarah777 (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

UTC means 'Universal Time Clock'. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Would that not make it the same time everywhere? Sarah777 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, you've got less then 2hrs, to present your Position Statement. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) UTC English backronym = Universal Time, Coordinated. BigDunc 22:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm..another backronym? My Position Statement is in Position. On the button; as per my internal clock. Read it and weep.....Sarah777 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you put something in the 'nutshell' part, please? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Bastun, done. Though I'm a bit worried when you ask for more from me. Sarah777 (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Ya should see the volume (word wise) of my 'Position Statement'. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, I asked your question on the project talk page. Consensus is anyone can endorse a statement. I've linked your position under the 'Alternative perspectives' section of my statement, and likewise linked to mine from your statement. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks - I just wondered if it was procedurally correct. Sarah777 (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Heeeeeeeeellllllp!!

SOS. I went into the archives of this page looking for a photo only to discover that everything archived since November 2008 seems to have vanished! Obviously they are going to get me - one way or another. (I'm not sure the post November 2008 stuff was ever there as this is the first time in years I peeked into the archive). Sarah777 (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit screwed up. I've added links to the "missing" archives above. The counter is set to 23 so it has still been archiving, but it appears to have screwed up the numbering between Archive 13 and Archive 20. --HighKing (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Sarah777 (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is what I was looking for. I'm not sure why. It seemed like a good idea at the time:) Sarah777 (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem! What were you planning exactly, Sarah? Jack forbes (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well...it appears you only need a plutonium core, some high explosive and some blue arrows connecting them and - BANG! Sarah777 (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I heard those blue arrows were hard to come by. Without them it's more of a snap, crackle, pop. Jack forbes (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sugar! Sarah777 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

MiszaBot is numbering as instructed. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeez. Why did I do that?! Sarah777 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday?

Hi, Sarah. Just saw this on your user page. Does that mean it's your Birthday today? If it does, then, Happy Birthday! If not, well, Happy Birthday whenever it is. Jack forbes (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Autodidactyl (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Wiki-Birthday to you, Sarah777 of Ireland, part of the British and Irish Isles. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Heck no - it's my Wiki Birthday! I was three a few weeks back:) Sarah777 (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean your now over the terrible twos? :) Jack forbes (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

:)Sarah777 (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you a Virgo, Sarah? That means your birthday is approaching.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Settler rights

Hi Sarah. You're right that I'm quibbling but (I hope) it's not about what you imply. I completely agree that the sources that survive on the 1641 rebellion are overwhelmingly mediated by an English and/or Protestant perspective. I wasn't trying to disagree with the current state of the article or condone the sources quoted on that particular sentence, and actually I would agree 100% that the rebellion wasn't an attempt at genocide. It was just that in the context of a NPOV article, "thought of by" seemed to do the job much better than "ironically claimed by". Greycap (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You are 100% correct Greycap! The phrase I inserted was not encyclopedic. No problem. It is important to keep an eye on me:) Regards Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Spooky stuff

In the article, Dunkettle railway station, I read: The station does not yet exist. It serves the town of Glanmire in County Cork. It is also a park and ride facility. The current station opened on 30th July 2009." Sarah777 (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That was indeed a bit of a timewarp. I went in and fixed it for you. Thanks for the barnstar. --John (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Population template

Hi Sarah, What is your opinion on the ongoing application of this template under different user names across the project. Seems a clear case of WP:DIS to me, due to the shotgun approach being taken by the ed. and his/her determination not to reply to questions or generally give a damn. To me this 'data' amounts to WP:OR and is more problematic than it might casually appear. I've asked for general comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Historical populations template. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I thought it was a table but upon further investigation I see it is based on a template {{Historical populations}}. ww2censor (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the information is very interesting if it can be integrated into the layout without ruining the articles. I'm not up to speed on the history of how they were added/by who; I came across a few of them but never looked into who was adding them or how. Even though I personally find them interesting I certainly agree such widespread additions must be discussed at IrlProj and some rules about how, where and when they are added should be drawn up. Sarah777 (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Sarah, you may be able to throw some light here and here? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Your position statement

Hi Sarah. Please clarify if you would like the summary by your name to read "in favour of option C, A, B, D and E, against option F" or only "against option F". Many thanks! -- Evertype·✆ 14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not "only against option F"! I have distinct preferences amongst the alternatives. Sarah777 (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No doubt you do but your position statement doesn't say what it is or why (only "...continue on down the list omitting only the 'Republic of Ireland'). It is the contents of your position statement that is being described by that tag line, not your preference (or so I thought at least).

In any case, are you sure it is option C you prefer first ("A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).")? I thought it was D ("The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (state)"). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a question of what I prefer and what to vote for. Clearly, the major problem is calling the state "RoI" as if that is it's name. Simply not acceptable. After that I might think Ireland (state) will get the most support but I'd prefer one article for one Ireland. Also Ireland (Republic) was dropped over my protestations (which were simply ignored), something to which we may need to return in due course. Sarah777 (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

You might want to have a look here BigDunc 19:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And here BigDunc 19:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Sarah, you can profile me as Cookie Monster. Seriously though, I think people are over-reacting, as there's no 100% way to find out if one's British, Irish, Russian etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Recommend you remove your 'Tally sheet', ya don't need the hassles. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is your tally? If you must put a category for me, put Finland. I am not a British subject nor an Irish citizen, nor do I have any loyalty to the Queen or the Irish President. The "F" in my user name stands for Finland. User F203 (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. My tally is currently censored on the IrlProj talkpages. See it below, regards Sarah777 (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCon Enforcement notice

I have placed a request for ArbCom enforcement based on your spreadsheet per the remedy directed at you per the Great Irish Famine ArbCom case. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...what has this got to do with any Arbcom case? Sarah777 (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on MLS

Sarah, I hope you don't mind me giving you a wee piece of friendly advice. I think you should wait until the arbcom case finishes before putting this here. You don't want to give them any more ammunition. Jack forbes (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack; as I said - this has nothing to do with any Arbcom case. The stats are becoming rather damning of the "we are all neutral Wikipedians" bilge; aren't they? Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say I'm not staring aghast at the figures. :) Jack forbes (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting test of whether Wiki can deal with real life rather than some imagined Utopia. Sarah777 (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jacks right Sarah, and so are you. Highlighting preferences on the basis of nationality is not going to diminish that tendency. Less said the better. RashersTierney (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am under no illusion that it will "diminish" the bias. (That might, in fact, be construed as "intimidation"!). What I seek to do here is illustrate it; quantitatively. So that denial becomes futile and the absurdity of claiming that there isn't any (per Masem) is exposed for what it is. Sarah777 (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's no longer about whether Wiki can deal with it or not. The consensus is that Wiki doesn't want profiling to occur, anywhere, while the vote is in progress. And it doesn't matter that you can argue that consensus is swayed by all those British editors, this place is run the way it is run, and that means you obey consensus. Perhaps had this table been on your Talk page all along, it could be argued that it couldn't influence votes, etc, but we're past that point now. This topic can hopefully be revisited when the vote is over. --HighKing (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah. I'm with big Dunc on this. We are the targets of attempted bullying and intimidation (it obviously works in some cases). The vote has no legitimacy if my analysis (what you call "profiling) is censored. Regardless of any imagined "consensus" (can you show me the vote?) - or do you mean Masem? Facts don't change 'cos a few Wiki editors agree that they should be different. If you want to be part of a charade, off with you. I won't be following. Sarah777 (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm seriously thinking of following the lead of Dunc, Domer and other Irish editors and withdrawing my own vote, actually. Censorship is the enemy of democracy. And @Mick, I'd not describe objecting to calling a sovereign state article by a description, in a manner that implies the description is the actual name, "towing a line". I'd maybe call it "drawing a line". Sarah777 (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Curious

I'm just a little curious as to what you've put me down as. Out of curiosity. Canterbury Tail talk 16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You, CT, I put down as Irish! Sarah777 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But remember I had DJ as "Unknown" when it appears he is Irish. Am I a mind reader?!Sarah777 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you can profile me anytime, my better side is my right. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

G'Day - I had you classed as a "known, not Br/Ir". I was sure you were Canadian..no? Sarah777 (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm a Canuck. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So what about people who are both? I'm not saying you are right with Irish, and I'm not saying you are wrong, and I'm not saying I'm both or neither either (sheesh that was a mouthful.) Canterbury Tail talk 20:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

CT, anyone else from NI I'd have classed as British unless they had a disclaimer on their page! But rather than a disclaimer such folk usually say "I'm an Irish Citizen from Ulster (the whole Provence)". Irish nationalists from NI almost never self-identify as British or even Northern Irish. If they do, without a disclaimer, I have classed them as British. Except you. Sarah777 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sarah777

Dear Sarah777, I've closed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sarah777. Your "My little spreadsheet" is harmless, IMO. You haven't violated the ArbCom sanction imposed on you, so there is no need to take any action. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I thought "profiling" was a bit strong for what I was doing and couldn't see how it violated Arbcom. But will Masem ever forgive me? He seems to have taken it personally but it absolutely wasn't. Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem overreacted to a hysterical analysis of your vote count. I'm sure he feels no personal antagonism. RashersTierney (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't believe Masem has taken it personally, and I'd say on reflection, he's now more aware than previously of the tactics used by some editors to deliberately create a drama. He needed to preserve the integrity of the vote, and at one stage with people withdrawing votes and calling for your head, he also needed to move swiftly. Perhaps IMO he was too quick to bring an Arbcom case, but he did what he believed was right, impersonally and without malice. --HighKing (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Sarah777 (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sarah777. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on MLS #2

Just to check, are you still counting people who vote F as their second option as being against F? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No Matter, didnt read the intro to it saying tally #1 only lol BritishWatcher (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I just voted for F, and would not have known about the poll at all were it not for the kerfuffle about your pointy spreadsheet. Good luck determining my nationality, and ethnicity. --StaniStani  22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in it. But I note that you have voted "F" for spiteful reasons that have nothing to do with the issues. All this info will be useful in the final analysis. Sarah777 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"spiteful reasons" <- Not actually true. Insert that in your final analysis as well. Have a great day. --StaniStani  16:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Two questions Sarah:

1) If my profile says that I live "in Northern Ireland" (with no mention of nationality), what would I be labelled as?

2) If my profile says that I live "on the island of Ireland" (with no mention of nationality), what would I be labelled as?

~Asarlaí 00:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

SFopp; if you provide no further information than (1) = British and (2) = unknown. Sarah777 (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

How have you identified the nationality of editors? And, given, that many editors are likely to be both Irish and British, how have you attributed such editors using this binary classification? Mooretwin (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I go by what they say on their own page. If they claim to be British and Irish (unusual occurance actually I've noted) then I go by where they say they live (if they say). NI=Br; Sovereign Ireland = Ir. Sarah777 (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So... someone who says on their userpage "I'm from Derry", e.g... you count as British? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't come across that yet. Sarah777 (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's quite offensive that you disregard Irish people from Northern Ireland. How have you classified me, and why is this information not made public? Mooretwin (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The article, to be mind-bogglingly obvious, is about the sovereign state and we know that 60% of NI folk are British. Sarah777 (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lmao so when counting Irish people, its only counting those from the Republic of Ireland not the whole island of Ireland... rather misleading :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You may laugh, if you wish. It changes nothing. Sarah777 (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we're getting a picture of why Sarah sees no problem in using "Ireland" to mean only the Republic! NI can just be disregarded as not Irish! Mooretwin (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Another Straw Man - I have long since said that I was not insisting on using "Ireland" to mean the free country. Sarah777 (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Love watching Larry Curly and Moe at work. BigDunc 15:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC) [[|thumb|300px|right|Bastun, Mooretwin and BritishWatcher shocked after being confronted with some facts]]

LOL BritishWatcher (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Now now, BigDunc. Just because Sarah is summarily dismissing half the population of Northern Ireland's claim to Irishness, that doesn't necessarily mean she's a defender of the British Empire. You'd really need a citation for that... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't. If a NI editor makes clear it isn't British (as many do) they count, obviously. It is, after all, British bias I am exposing so effectively. Which I know annoys you 'cos it shows much of your waffle to be just that. Sarah777 (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sarah. I've been reading over your recent adventures in Wikiland, precipitated by this analysis. I'm Sorry I missed all the fun as it happened, but I was actually in Britain on some business (and am pleased to confirm that they are not all Nazi imperialists ;).

As someone who analyzes data for a living, I have to say I find your methodology slightly skewed. The whole point of a STV is to get away from enforcing individuals to make dichotomic choices and instead permit a more nuanced way of expressing preference or objection. Ignoring that data in your analysis makes its real value rather limited. Of course, doing it this way will maximize the differences between your groups of choice while minimizing the similarities. This is the point of doing it, I expect, given the analysis is to further a position, rather than test a hypothesis. Nevertheless, taken at face value (and with the caveat that the sampling is hardly rigorous) it is interesting that there does appear to be a increased primary preference for ROI among mainland British nationals compared with Irish nationals. What I find most interesting, though, is that you explain that difference as a "bias". On that basis, there is an argument to be made that the Irish aversion to ROI could also be a result of a "bias" since both deviate from the non-Irish/British group (though the n is currently too low to make any significant claims about the relative extents of deviation). Since the British group is most likely larger, their "bias" will have a relatively greater effect on the overall outcome, but your analysis missed the key statistic completely.

The real issue is not about F vs Not-F, its about F vs A,B,C,D or E. If you really want to determine whether a "bias" in either direction is going to effect the outcome of this, check what the proportion of the non-Irish/British vote is for each of the other options. Given there are currently 18 votes to be distributed among 5 options, I suspect that F may still be the easy winner (with 12). If that is the case, then its difficult to argue that British (or Irish) "bias" has any real effect on the outcome, statistically speaking. We'll have to wait and see, of course, but my feeling is that these "biases" will not change the overall order of preference from "neutrals", only the relative proportions. Ironically enough, it will probably be the Irish "bias" that counterbalances the British "bias" enough to ensure that doesn't happen. Rockpocket 02:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rock. You may be shocked to learn, but I'm a reasonably competent statistician in RL! As the data is limited and not set up in an experimental template I am testing something I observed within months of arriving at Wiki in the Summer of 2006. The last real Summer we had in Ireland. There is a real hypothesis here - this is not plundering the variables to find a difference. I'm glad you survived your trip to the neighbouring island, but would like to remind you that I never said, ever, that all Britons were Nazis. Best to be clear about that, what with Arbom n'all. I must quibble that the real issue isn't F v Not F. The poll does not test that directly; but that is the real issue.

And yes, the results indicate that editors residing in sovereign Ireland are biased against RoI compared to the "other/unknows" but I think it reasonable that citizens of the country would be rather better informed about the problem with presenting RoI as a name, as En:Wiki does. It seems the Moderator, for one, was unaware of the problem. (The centrality of the position of the "Irish non-British" editors in all of this is shown by the contortions of obfuscation and illogicality by the prime defenders of the status quo - you'll note that they still can't bring themselves to admit what you clearly observed).

If we exclude British votes for F; it falls. There are a lot of tactical plonkers for F and I'd argue the status quo has an impossible advantage without a two-stage process so long as the British bias supports it.

Sarah777 (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A "reasonably competent statistician" would not be totally unaware of the importance of weighting raw data when trying to reach the neutral point of view. Especially if your aim is to prove a net effect of alleged bias on the poll, rather than simply claiming you have made a shocking discovery with your mathematical fumbling - that Irish editors and British editors have differing views over what 'Ireland' means. When this is the quality of the factual basis of your complaint, it is not surprising nobody listens to the non-factual allegations / accusations / theories / assumptions that always come with it. And please, do not confuse people giving you attention as them 'being scared of The Truth', I personally am merely concerned with stopping other editors being taken in by your borked analysis which is being used to back up your blatant POV agenda and belies your total lack of true objectivity. I am fully behind any initiative that gives the communtiy a chance to see your arguments/analysis in the full glare of publicity, complete with counter arguments, and your frequently absent/irrelevant responses to such. I like the tactical plonkers bit though, maybe as a side project you can do some more fumbling and help me understand which nationalities would vote for both B and D or vice versa, if their aim was to get Wikipedia to show definitively there is a primary use of the term Ireland as either a state or an island (I won't repeat your fallacy that Wikipedia article titles are always equivalent to official names). FYI, you voted D C A B E at last check. MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

See below. The analysis of B, D etc is totally irrelevant to the problem of "RoI" as a name. And again your inability to analyse things logically leads to you creating Straw men - I never said that Irish editors and British editors have differing views over what 'Ireland' means. Let me repeat for slower folk in the British pov camp: Implying RoI is the name of the sovereign country is offensive, wrong and contrary to WP:NPOV. The name is maintained by the numerical preponderance of British voters and the fact that they heavily support imposing "F" as the article title. Maybe try reading that v.e.r.y s.l.o.w.l.y and see if that helps your comprehension? Sarah777 (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If we exclude British votes for F; it falls. Problem is, Sarah, we exclude British votes for any of the other options, I'll bet they fall too. By the looks of things, F appears to be still the most popular option among those offered. There may well be a systemic bias by British editors, but there is no evidence here that this bias would impact this process. Rockpocket 16:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. If we exclude British votes F gets overtaken. Sarah777 (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Overtaken by what? Your analysis does not show this. Rockpocket 00:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How many vote "not C"? Anyway, you may be interested in this. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Not C" has no relevance to the problem with RoI as a name. And I'm interested in your tally only in that if confirms that the preponderance of British votes going for "F" is imposing British pov on the title of the article about my country. Against the clear wishes of Irish editors. As it has since the start. Sarah777 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

...click the link, Sarah. Against the clear wishes of Irish editors? Click the link :-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You are becoming tedious (well, TBH, you always were since your hysterical referrals to me for RFCs etc). There are not 32 non-British Irish editors voting. This is not about what Unionists in NI would like to call the South - that is part of the British pov problem. Now, I have to get back to work so I'm accepting no further comments on this page about the poll for one week - they will be deleted with extreme prejudice (since I'm censored on the poll pages). I will update the facts; all chat will take place elsewhere. I realise that editors who only turn up to defend the British pov on a number of Ireland related articles have endless time to give to this; but I have real Wiki-work to do. Sarah777 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I clearly didn't say I include everyone in NI as "British". Either address what I did say or sod off. Sarah777 (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Constant protestations

Your constant protestations 'are not' helping things. Let the Poll run its course, please. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing that maintains "RoI" is helping things, IMHO. It being British pov imposed on the article about my country by weight of numbers of British editors. As proven. Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You're never gonna get a poll or discussion setup on Wikipedia, that 'excludes' British editors. Also, the current Poll is only a week old, things might change bye September -give it a chance-. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't want that. What I want is that the clear evidence of pov imposition be taken on board, now that it is so graphically demonstrated (both by this poll and the non-use of the offensive RoI by a huge majority of other Wikis) be taken on board and WP:NPOV by upheld by the authorities. Sarah777 (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tends to be in the eye of the beholder. What you perceive as British PoV, is viewed as NPoV by others. Also, what you consider NPoV, may be perceived as Irish PoV by others. How shall my preference be viewed by others? Canadian PoV? if so, then wouldn't that also be a problem? GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I just don't wanna see you getting into trouble. PS: Thanks for not 'deleting me' (the way Domer & Tfz have). GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooops! This isn't aimed at you G'Day; it's too time-wasting to make the same points on several pages. Sarah777 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Constant repetition

I'm accepting no further comments on this page about the poll for one week - they will be deleted with extreme prejudice (since I'm censored on the poll pages). I will update the facts; all chat will take place elsewhere. Starting now. Sarah777 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Genetic history of the British Isles

Don't pop a blood vessel, but now apparently we have 'islands' with 'genetic history'. The farce just gets more farcical. RashersTierney (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

LoL! As we know "British Isles" is another Anglo imposition; different part of the problem that is so graphically being illustrated here. Sarah777 (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course I must correct you: didn't you know that per the defenders of British pov, Isles does not = islands? How can you not understand that?! Sarah777 (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That article should be split. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

North-South or East-West? RashersTierney (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Or moved to the British and Faeroe Isles - equally valid. Sarah777 (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Preferably 'Genetic history of Great Britain' & 'Genetic history of Ireland'. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first time such nativist mumbo jumbo was taken out for a run. RashersTierney (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing 'Genetic history of the Irish Isles' is a no go. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There is only one that contains 99.99% of the population! Pointless more than no-go:) Sarah777 (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Naw, British and Faeroe Isles wouldn't work. You see, Denmark reckons that the Faroes are not part of the continent of Europe - its its own mini-continent - which includes Rockall - which is why Denmark owns Rockall and we don't ClemMcGann (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, The British and Falkland Islands? Sarah777 (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I have an 1836 British Encyclopedia. In its entry for the Falklands it has a governor appointed by Buenos Aires. However lets not open that lid ClemMcGann (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Whats happening to [1]? ClemMcGann (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No longer a problem! Sarah777 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

And to think that a British Nationalist of this ilk and ra, Bastun and DJ are in lock-step in imposing Britsh pov on Irish articles! Could we throw them out of IrlProj for "conduct unbecoming"?! Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That article appears to be about the British Isles, one editor earlier made changes to a couple of articles removing the term British Isles. I simply restored the previous wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You really shouldn't edit war BW. Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No justification was given for the removal of the British Isles from the text, the same editor made exactly the same removal of the term on another article which was reverted by someone else. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Geez Sarah. And you were getting it in the neck for 'national profiling'. RashersTierney (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Chutzpah is the favoured form of irony of the "Irish" pushers of British pov! Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There's another poll Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles ClemMcGann (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The trap is baited. Don't fall for it. RashersTierney (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Rashers, I wasn't consciously setting a trap. Nevertheless your caution is wise. ClemMcGann (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My observation not directed at any particular editor Clem. RashersTierney (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Rashers - thanks - now they are deleting references - [2] - ClemMcGann (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely irrational that the other European 'entities' are states except this single pov inspired 'geographical' one. RashersTierney (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

Hi can you do me a favour and undo the move made here which is against the Arbcom ruling?83.43.216.214 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It makes no difference to what appears on the page! (Or am I missing something???) Sarah777 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean the page title move. ie Ireland was changed to ROI in the title.83.43.216.214 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't be undone without admin intervention alas. I left a message on the mover's talk. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

e/c You need to be an Admin to move a page title back to where it was. I'm not one....yet:) Sarah777 (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The page mover is a sock puppet of user:Dylanmckane, so I don't think there'll be any cooperation there. Can you contact a trusted admin to out on the arbcom ruling? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.179.120.4 (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Will do if you link me the relevant Arbcom ruling. I'm not familiar with it (or I think I'm not! :) Sarah777 (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Here you go! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.179.120.4 (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've left a summary of this on User:Rockpocket's page. He will know what to do. Sarah777 (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I just "fixed" it, but I may need to un-fix it for compliance with the Europe topics template. Taking to IECOLL for further discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming

I understand that the official name is Eire in Gaelic or Ireland in English by the constitution, but plenty of Irish people, books, newspapers, etc. use Republic of Ireland, and that's how the country is generally known worldwide, not just by we Brits. Do you have any sources for the name Republic of Ireland causing significant offense? I did find a letter to a psychiatry journal noting that Eire shouldn't be used in English, and noting disapproval of Irish authors using the name "Republic of Ireland",[3] but they didn't seem offended by the use, rather they were being a stickler for strict accuracy by my reading. Fences&Windows 00:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Context is everything. RoI is used as a dab in certain contexts, though it is by no means the most common one. In Ireland (south) itself, "The South" and "The North" are perhaps the commonest; even when the "RoI" is referenced people will usually say and write "The Republic" rather than RoI. Looking at the international media I can't agree; most MSM outlets refer to "Ireland" to mean either the island or the country and use "Nothern Ireland" as the main dab. The phrase the "island of Ireland" is also pretty common to mean the whole island. Regard soccer, the one area where RoI is used as an official title the newspapers in the country will often talk about games between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The background to the POV is that before the Good Friday Agreement, British legislation and Governmant had "RoI" as the legal name of the State despite the fact that an Irish Act explicitly stated that "RoI" was a description, not a name. As time progressed the simple term Ireland was assumed to mean the State over here but in Britain till the GFA it was steadfastly referred to as RoI. Sarah777 (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"The South" and "The North" are colloquialisms, and I've heard that the phrase "Southern Ireland" isn't well accepted, and it's also inaccurate as parts of the Irish state are in Ulster and are more northerly than Northern Ireland... I had a look for recent news coverage using the term "Republic of Ireland", trying to exclude football. See [4]. The British press uses it, such as the BBC, Guardian, Independent, and many US sources use it too. On a quick search, I found a couple of Belfast Telegraph stories - I realise Belfast isn't in the Republic - and a couple of RTE stories. On a search of RTE, again excluding football, there are plenty of stories using "Republic of Ireland":[5]. In contrast, the Irish Times seems to have very few references:[6]

The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 says the state will be known as the "Republic of Ireland",[7] so it has been an official description and not one that caused any offence at the time, and it certainly wasn't imposed by a British point of view. The difference between a name and a description would seem semantic, and to rest on the fact that the act would have had to be a constitutional amendment to officially change the name. I think there's no dispute that the strict legal name of the state is "Ireland", but Wikipedia goes by the name commonly used internationally and not what a state rules, e.g. see Union of Myanmar.

I'd like to point out another motivation for British editors to be interested in Ireland other than nationalism, racism or imperialism: many British people feel a kinship to the Irish. Many of us have Irish ancestors, family, and friends, the Welsh, Scots and Cornish have a shared Gaelic heritage with the Irish, UK citizens don't need a passport to enter Ireland, and Irish citizens can even vote in UK general elections! We share a lot with the Irish, unfortunately including a shameful history of tramping over you for a few hundred years. Fences&Windows 16:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

My Little Spreadsheet

This is currently censored on the IrlProj pages: It is a tally of #1 votes only. Keeping on eye the systematic bias angle: 149 votes so far. There are 56 users whose nationality is not identified on their their user page.

• British editors.......(38): F - 25; Not F - 13
• Irish editors..........(21): F - 6; Not F - 15
• Other (known)......(34): F - 13; Not F - 21
• Nationality N/A.....(56): F - 23; Not F - 33
• Total...................(149): F - 67; Not F - 82
• Without Br input(105): F - 42; Not F - 69

Sarah777 (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Some additional facts from the poll (latest update) To confound some of the disinformation on the talk pages (where my analysis is censored) I have examined the entire list of ALL preferences, without weighting, by (non-British) Irish editors, of whom so far 21 have voted who self-identify as such on their page:

(This section is no longer meaningful as a quarter of the currently active Irish editors have pulled out of the process. Examination of the non-Irish votes may continue, if I can be bothered enough. The case is already proven on so many fronts).

Self-identified British editors (36):

• Option F - 30
• Option D - 26
• Option E - 23
• Option C - 22
• Option B - 18
• Option A - 16

Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

***PLEASE NOTE; DISCUSSION OF MY POLL IS PROHIBITED HERE WHILE I AM CENSORED ON THE TALKPAGE***

Block notice by DrKiernan

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. DrKiernan (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody get this clown to remove his block? He is a participant in the debate" on the Ireland talk-page and has silenced an opponent. Sarah777 (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you use the unblock text. Or is there someone in particular you want to look at this? Jack forbes (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is so outrageous that I have no intention of playing games, If I use the "unblock" text some random Admin comes along, reads the statement cited, says "good block" and goes off to the next case. What I will be doing is seeking to get DrKiernan desysoped for monumental abuse of Admin powers. There are dozens of cases on the page in question of me being called everything under the sun - no intervention. I respond, an an active disputant blocks. Sarah777 (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Kiernan knows this so feels he can get away with this abuse. Sarah777 (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I hope this can be seen (rather quickly) to be a hasty block. Sarah was blocked for this comment with a block reason given as (Personal attacks or harassment: Accusing other editors of "lies". I've gathered together some examples of comments made where accusations of lies were made from the same pages. A number of editors have made remarks using the word "lies" and in fact, some are rather more pointed that Sarah's!:

• MickMacNee, 5th August 14:08
• Bastun, 7th August 22:25
• BritishWatcher, 8th August 18:17
• Sarah777, 8th August 09:57
• Bastun, 9th August 15:37
• Rannpháirtí anaithnid, 9th August 17:41
• Bastun, 9th August 18:08
• Rannpháirtí anaithnid, 9th August 19:44
• Sarah777, 9th August 22:39
• Where ironically, Sarah is calling attention to the fact that editors have called her a liar...
• Sarah777, 10th August 09:50

DrKiernan, please remove this block:

• in light of the past use of the comment (it's nearly become a catchphrase ffs)
• in light of DrKiernan not providing any warning to Sarah to stop using the phrase
• in light of the fact that Sarah appears to be singled out from among a ton of editors
• in light of the fact that DrKiernan, the blocking admin, is an involved editor
• in light of the fact that far worse comments were made, and that Sarah had called attention to the fact that she was being called a liar, and still she ends up with the block.

--HighKing (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you HK - but I'd not ask Kiernan for a rope if I was drowning. I think if the clown doesn't lift this attack on the polling process of his own volition, he becomes part of the problem. Clearly the validity of any result is fading with every second the various watching Admins allow this politically motivated block to continue. Sarah777 (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Come back when you lift the block Chillum. Kiernan, F supporter, is attacking the poll, not just me. He is engaged in trying to intimidate Irish editors who oppose his POV. BW; pl stay away. Sarah777 (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support unblock per HighKing. Instead, warn her, BritishWatcher and me to be more civil (R.A. has already become more careful with his language), because we've all used the term "in anger". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Tk u Bastun - though we may have exchanged a few expletives in moments of passion :) Sarah777 (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean, I guess we'll all have to work together for two years after F is imposed on the Irish Wiki Community yet again.....Sarah777 (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Though obviously this attack on the process by Kiernan the Clown will have implications Sarah777 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)(outdent)I received a response to my request for DrKiernan to reconsider on DrKiernan's Talk page. It's clear he is not willing to reconsider rescinding the block. It's also clear that (as per Sarah777's comment above) an admin (Chillum), appears to be hanging around ready to pounce to endorse the block (as his comment already, in effect, does).

• The comments from Chillum and DrKiernan point out that Sarah has called DrKiernan a clown, but this event occurred after the block. Quoting it as a reason for the block doesn't make sense.
• DrKiernan states that he is not an involved editor in this, but it has been pointed out that he has responded twice to comments made by Sarah, and has his own subpage of poll results, so it seems to me that DrKiernan is involved.
• DrKiernan says that The previous breaches all occurred in the past. It is against policy to block editors for breaches which occurred more than 24 hours ago. I wasn't aware it was against policy - nice to know - but my examples above were to demonstrate how the phrase "lies and misinformation" had practically become a catchphrase on the Talk page, and wasn't an exhaustive list of all mentions of the word "lie".
  • Less that 24 hours earlier BritishWatcher stated in response to Sarah but less than 10 minutes later you were continuing ur crap that Republic of Ireland is British POV. thats a lie and ClemMcGann replied with Please refrain from using the word "lie".
• I can also produce a number of examples from the same talkpage of recent name calling: for example being called "mere bullyboys". Or is there really a difference between using "lies" and stating you continue to say misleading things? Or referring to some editors opinions as catering to the personal hang-ups of editors? So it's also clear that the 24 hours excuse doesn't wash either.

I know for a fact that tons of admins have Sarah's page on their watchlists, so why isn't anybody stepping in? --HighKing (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Because one of the necessary conceits of Wikipedia, (that we all kinda recognise as BS but choose to ignore) is the claim that it is not a bureaucracy. It is, and it usually works fairly effectively. But not in this case. RashersTierney (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I see Chillum found an excuse to step in. I suppose if I called Chillum a clown I'd get away with it because I'm not Sarah, right? Chillum, your latest block shows you to belong to the same merry band of clowns, in the same merry circus, as DrKiernan. Your block below makes a farce of what admin tools are for. --HighKing (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually HighKing I did not block Sarah, I adjusted an existing block to prevent her from getting her block extended through her behavior. Any further comments to me can be done on my talk page, not Sarah's thank you. Chillum 14:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that blocking this page before a single unblock request has been filed makes this a farce and abuse of admin tools. --HighKing (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course its an abuse! But there will be jack shit done about it.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DrKiernan, tear down this block. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... as comments go that one seemed fairly innocuous in the stream of things. Sarah's behavior may have be far from stellar on that page but that comment in particular is a fairly dud reason for a block. Also I don't think that a block is in the spirit of a fair vote unless someone complained about something. Also, DrKiernan was a contributor to WP:IECOLL, he/she is not an uninvolved admin. I think Masem should be the only admin with privilege to police that page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Bad block - unblock now.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Because you have chosen to ignore my warnings not to use this page for personal attacks while blocked or any other time and decided to continue doing so, I have removed your ability to edit this page.

You will regain the ability when you block has expired. If you continue engaging in personal attacks after your block you will receive another block. Further warnings to you are not needed as you are fully aware of these policies now.

Grotesque, Unbelievable, Bizarre and Unprecedented. - ClemMcGann (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately its not unprecedented, but I'll grant you all the others. RashersTierney (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a laugh, especially the bit about personal attacks not being tolerated. Take a look at the list I posted above to see how well personal attacks are tolerated. It has been suggested on my Talk page to file at ANI. Is that what is required to get this looked at, especially considering that Sarah hasn't even been allowed the opportunity to file a single unblock request. --HighKing (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And to be clear, you blocked because Sarah used the phrase "Kiernan the Clown", yes? --HighKing (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there ample precedent of not counting post-block insults against the blocking admin as effecting a block? I'm sure I've seen it cited it lots of times before, and in fact seen it described as something to be expected and ignored. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DrKiernan, let Sarah go, block me instead. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocking the use of a talkpage and use of emails makes matters worse - increases frustration and adds fuel to the fire. Please end it.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Block review?

Sarah, would you like me (or someone else) to start a block review thread at AN or ANI? You should decide that, since it has a theoretical chance of backfiring, and since you might be pursuing things by email already. Hans Adler 17:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It should go to ANI review, one of the basic rules is that an admin who is a participant in a debate should not be blocking someone on the other side. --Snowded ^TALK 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

She's blocked off her Talk page so she can't respond. A very bad day all round. --HighKing (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Actually guidelines on this say to use normal dispute resolution, and then if that fails take on to a request for comment on use of admin tools, or to ANI. However at this point (she's unblocked) ANI would not be appropriate as there's nothing that would require immediate intervention by others admins', ie unblocking. Thus use discussion with the blocking admin, and if there were to fail use the dispute resolution process. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Commentary

I can't recall seeing a more petty minded block on Wikipedia. Disgraceful bullying by the technocrats concerned. RashersTierney (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm attempting to understand Chillum. I can't locate the RfA for Chillum. Is there one? If not: who appointed him? and why? This might explain his arrogance ClemMcGann (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The former user name was HighinBC, changed after second RfA was successful. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/HighInBC_2 Sswonk (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Block Log

• 03:42, 30 May 2007 – blocked for 3RR which turned out not to be.

• 03:32, 3 June 2007 – blocked by Admin with whom I was in dispute . Used the formal appeal box to explain that block was a mistake only for an Admin to summarily reject it without explanation. Dispute with him followed and he then blocked me for posting a comment on his page.

• 07:48, 22 December 2007 – blocked by a warring Admin with whom I was in dispute on “List of Massacres” who was subsequently blocked for his warring by another Admin!

• 22:18, 25 January 2008 – blocked by Admin with whom I was in dispute

• 22:27, 25 January 2008 – not a separate block; a variation of the one below due to some sort of edit conflict.

• 16:36, 23 February 2008 – blocked for comment “sod off” in dispute with an Admin (by other Admin)

• 01:07, 28 February 2008 – blocked by Admin with whom I was in dispute

• 00:24, 27 May 2008 – this was for “edit warring” on the “Years in Ireland” series, though I was restoring articles that I has created and had been removed without any process. This led to about a month block, for, essentially nothing.

• 11:46, 11 August 2009 – political block; in dispute with the blocker

So, we have eight separate blocks; the first a mistaken 3RR after I'd been a year here. Four of the next five were by Admins I was in dispute with and one by an uninvolved Admin for saying "sod off" to another Admin. The next block was bizarre; I was restoring a set of articles I had worked on for months which were deleted without process and got an indefinite block which lasted for a month. And now we have another block by a Admin in dispute. So one mistaken block for 3RR in May 2007 is built upon by warring Admins, each citing the earlier bad blocks. No edit warring. No disruption of articles. Nothing except a refusal to surrender to abuse random "civility" blocks by editors in dispute with me. From about the third block forward Admins started to justify their abuse by citing "the block record". I demand that this record of harassment and intimidation be purged.

I will make some observations on the current sham process later. Where is Masem while all this is going on? Sarah777 (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to express my appreciation for all the support I got during my recent quietness. Especially to Bastun, who despite being so utterly wrong on issues of nomenclature is a pretty sound bloke. Sarah777 (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to your query on my talk page. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 13:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Check out my response (concerning 'false alarm'). GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

"What personal attacks?" I may just take your last posts to WP:AN/I, and you'll get a chance to see them closer (in any case, I note personal attacks are something you've been several times blocked for already). Seriously, I consider the thread sidetracked and over as far as I'm concerned, so if you continue to try your hand at unnerving me there, I might just consider the admin noticeboard alternative. Dahn (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........................Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hate to see two eds. I admire taking things so personally. Could we turn the heat down a notch please? RashersTierney (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the charge of incivility leveled at me was OTT; (see the discussion at ANI) I have never encountered this editor before (that I can recall). And I think the reference to the block log was especially poor, given the circumstances. And the folk at ANI agreed with my reasoning 100% though this editor called it "illogical". Sarah777 (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have come across this ed. before, and you may have more in common than either of you are likely to recognise. Like yourself he has often courageously ploughed a lone furrow in challenging preconceptions and prejudice. RashersTierney (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll see if we can sign a peace treaty:) Sarah777 (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree to that. In fact, my main grievance was that you were not addressing the points I raised, but some cliché which I don't identify with (my point was not about how interpretations of a symbol may vary - we all know that they do -, but about how the context seemed to indicate that, in that particular case, we may just have been dealing with the same, clear-cut, objectionable use). I found it particularly frustrating that you rushed in to deride me without even representing my opinion properly, preferring to carry on a one-sided debate with a straw man, and I still view ad hominems about one's lack of sanity and rationality, particularly the haphazard ones, to be serious personal attacks. I have a thicker skin than that, which is why I let it slide, but you may discover that, if continued, jumping to this type of argumentation in a thread harms communication and may in the future damage your status as an editor. Others may not be so understanding and/or lazy as to ignore them.

Apologies accepted, and please accept my own regrets at having gotten started on the wrong foot. And a big thank you to Rashers. Respectfully, Dahn (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. RashersTierney (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

And more personal attacks

Everytype has restored personal attacks on me which I removed on the Ireland poll page. And this "process" is expected to carry any weight with the majority of Irish editors? Sarah777 (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... aren't Evertype and Djegan both Irish, though? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Being Irish gives you no special rights to breach WP:CIVIL. I can't abide exceptionalism. And the main culprit was J Kenny, who doesn't seem Irish - apart from the name. And if I were the sensitive type, which I am, I'd regard your style of sarcasm as incivility with a tin hat on. Sarah777 (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I have quoted you here. –xeno^talk 13:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

kudos to you for your WP:AGF, and moving forward in positive ways. More people approaching things here in that manner would be a blessing indeed. — Ched :  ?  14:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - but somehow I manage to get into more holes out of which to dig myself than most - I'm thinking of switching my anger management guy :) Sarah777 (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You have an anger management guy?? :) Jack forbes (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not getting any value for money, am I? Sarah777 (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

I've never been to Ireland, but from pictures I've seen, it's a beautiful land. PS: I've Irish ancestry. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The bridge: I'd say it's a dead-end to the road, which also requests that nobody park on the lawn. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It's a dead-start road. Lateral thinking my man! Sarah777 (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Would I be right in guessing, you see the current Poll at the Irish Collab Page as a 'dead start'? GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all! It has reached a dead-end. Sarah777 (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still supporting 'Option E'. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

G'Day...you are a veritable bulldog among Wikipedians. Sarah777 (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Woof, woof. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sarah searching for photo of dog.....* Sarah777 (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, a 'bulldog barnstar' is in order? GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for the barnstar. One request, would you transfer it to my 'main page', so it doesn't get archived? GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, for starring my barnstar. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, your signature, purrr-fict. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

In view of your temperament I've added Cool to Canadian! And I got the star from Titch Tucker's barnstar...tempus fugit. Sarah777 (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm honoured. PS: I sure do miss Titch. GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Shrule

Is there any reason you have for deleting this apart from the fact that you don't like it? It's not political Sarah, it happened or it didn't. If you have actual evidence sugesting it didn't then let's have it. If not then I don't see what you have to complain about. Jdorney (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The burden is to prove that it did happen, not that it didn't! Sarah777 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But there is a sourcce listed apparently you just don't like what it says. Jdorney (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Check the discussion at List of events called massacres for the requirements that such an emotive term be used. If memory serves me I have had long disputes with yourself some years ago when I was attempting to apply this term to the killings by settlers. Sarah777 (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

An apology

Sarah, thank you for withdrawing the stalking claim. Let me go further and apologize to you for my behavior. This level of highly personalized dispute is bad for everyone, and I did a lot to get things to that point. We ought to be able to disagree without attacking each other. As such, I should not have focused my arguments on attacking you personally. I apologize for and withdraw the remark about nationalist grievance-mongering, which was unfair and unproductive. I also apologize for saying that you should be blocked from editing on this subject, and for calling you poisonous - remarks like that really should have no place on Wikipedia. Tempers can get frayed on matters like this, and I let my temper get away from me. You should know that I would never even contemplate blocking you myself, and I promise you that I am not going to block you under any circumstances. I doubt we will ever agree on the nomenclature issue, but that shouldn't mean that we have to keep increasing the stakes in this way. So, anyway, please consider those remarks withdrawn. john k (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem John, and thank you. I was very WP:POINTY and to be honest don't know the first thing about you except that you have a first class edit record. I think it was dismissing my "small town" record that really annoyed me - I see a similarity between recording all those towns and villages and meticulously recording the various royals, however minor. They all go to make Wiki the universal port of call for any question anyone has. Happy editing! Sarah777 (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

May I congratulate both of you to your mature behaviour and your ability to realize and correct own misdemeanour. Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 14:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How to notify a page's author of proposed deletion.

Hello, Sarah777. In an edit summary at Andersons Thatch Pub you wrote, "anyone know how to nofity the author???" In order to notify the creator of a page that the page has been proposed for deletion, first click the 'History' tab at the top of the page (in Wikipedia's default appearance). If necessary, page back to the earliest page in the history, and click the 'talk' link of the user who created the page. You can then use the {{prodwarning}} template from the PROD banner to load a standard warning. Note that the template must be substituted; the PROD banner includes proper substituting syntax, and even pre-loads the reason for proposed deletion. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never really mastered the complexities of the AfD templates. Sarah777 (talk) 21:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I see I'm not the first to propose an AfD on that page!! Sarah777 (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I never reckoned replying was as bad as attacking. Sarah777 (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Who's who?

Sarah, if you have listed the "Irish" and/or the "British" as you are using them in your tally, I apologise for including you in the "everyone making claims". Obviously, I missed your answer. I would be grateful if you could give me a link. Thanks. // BL \\ (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll send you the list tomorrow; I didn't name names because I was being accused of "intimidation", "profiling" and "driving voters" away by just giving the numbers. I'll email the list - you can post it - if you are brave enough :)! Sarah777 (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I was/am still hoping that everyone will either post their lists or stop with the arguing. A girl can dream, can't she? Thanks for the offer. // BL \\ (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC) (I was sounding like GoodDay, which is why I made the strikeout. Sounding like GoodDay is fine only if you are GoodDay.) // BL \\ (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a male. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a pitch to me Sarah :-) RashersTierney (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What can I say, Rashers? I've always been attracted to passionate Irish gals. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a 'Don Juan', 'Cassanova' & 'Groucho Marx' rolled into one. I'm also very modest. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, GoodDay, I apologise if you believe I have misled anyone. You might have said "A boy can dream!". "Sound like GoodDay" might have been better if I had qualified it by "with appropriate changes in gender". // BL \\ (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm cool with it, as I knew what ya meant. I just can't resist being a silly (Canadian) goose. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, uhm, actually, I am the (silly) Canadian goose in this context; you are the silly (Canadian) gander! :-) // BL \\ (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, I'm the silly gander. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I thought you liked Californian girls in black clothing? Are you pulling a Dave Garver on me, and must I turn into Evelyn Draper all dressed-up in her little whore suit to get you all to myself?!!!!! BTW GoodDay, I'd love a coke.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Play Misty For Me!! Sarah777 (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"What da ya want, Evelyn, what da ya want? Why, do I have to waaaaaant somethin', can't I just come ovah?"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, as Dean Martin said: "I like music & I love women". GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay baby, believe me when I say this: Dean Martin was no Clint Eastwood!!! I have a hard time imagining Evelyn Draper dressing up in her little whore suit for Martin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

hi

I thought you'd have expressed a vote on the name thing...I appreciate the way it is being handled is fundamentally unfair but nontheless, I thought you'd chip in. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm away at the moment and only drop in occaisionally. What name thing? Is there something new afoot? Sarah777 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I did vote but withdrew after the censorship of myself and other Irish editors became intolerable. Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sarah777. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The process

• I'd like to remind editors that the ArbCom ruling does *not* result in an article title lockdown for 2 years, but instead is to agree a "process" whereby agreement is reached. A vote for "F", in my view", is a vote to *not* agree a compromise, and a vote to *not* solve the problem.
• I'd like to endorse this statement from High King.
• Sarah777 (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• I too endorse the above statement. BigDunc 11:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Amen - and those who do not learn from history .... ClemMcGann (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• endorse! --Domer48_'fenian' 18:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Holy smokers, I was hoping things would be locked down 'until' 2011. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Could someone pls explain what the 'statement' means? Abtract (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT

I would like you to read "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". It is my hopes that the content of this guideline will help you make your point about Wikipedia administrators in a less disruptive fashion. I also hope the content is taken by you as a warning regarding the results of proving points disruptively instead of productively. Peace. Chillum 03:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just read it. And it seems as relevant to the blocking of Vk and my response on his page as say, The Book of Job. Maybe you could help me here by telling me which bit you feel would help me? Sarah777 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to second Chillium's recommendation. There is much wisdom in WP:POINT. Advocating a position does not require disruptive activity. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue at ANI is resolved.[8] I agree with Chillum, and Georgewilliamherbert to some extent, but I would like to point out that Sarah777 is a good editor. Sometimes good editors get blocked by admins for no good reason, and people do get angry. Sarah, you should protest peacefully. BTW, I like this example. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Had a wee chat about me I see? Sorry I missed it. Chillum, I think I have had to chastise you before for a bad block on me - let's hope you are not thinking about another one. As for Todd, well, leopards and spots etcetera. (I hope these reflections on the poor quality of some Admin decisions aren't blockable). Because I clearly did not disrupt Wiki to make a point. I made a point on an unjustly blocked editor's page about an Admin whose page reads like a sewer outflow - yet who blocked an FA editor for "incivility". Seriously, when Admins start testifying for one another they are like the cop who alleging assault by the accused told the judge "he attacked my fist with his nose and flung his skull against my baton". Yeah. It's that bad. Sarah777 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction Sarah, I never blocked you, I adjusted an existing block to prevent you from using your talk page to engage in personal attacks. Considering you behavior at the time this adjustment likely prevented you from getting your block increased. I am yet again trying to prevent you from getting blocked by asking you to look at what you are doing and comparing it to the community standards for behavior. Chillum 22:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Two things Chill; you could be right about that adjustment, tbh I don't really hold any serious grudges against you bar the fact I can't get your code to work in my mono-thingy. As for threats, well, this is my response:

Ah! It's gone. Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeepers, it sure looks to me like your comment was a restrained and somewhat jovial response to the highly confrontational, pointy, and hostile F-Bomb dropping engaged in by an Admin. Yet I didn't see any of this outrage expressed on their talk page. Is this a case of admins looking out for their own or what? I hope I'm missing something and GWH can clue me in?

Anyway, as far as I can tell, the over-the-top reactions to your comment Sarah are wholly unjustified, and the many pointy, bitey, and accusatory attacks pointed your way are quite abusive and disruptive. That type of smearing is really unhelpful and I hope GWH will do more to put a stop to it. I very much hope your editing experience will be more pleasant in the future Sarah. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My own belief, if one is entitled to such things on Wiki, is that the OTT reactions are part of a POV campaign by a - heck, let's call them a cabal - of anti-Irish Admins. Getting folk opposed to their particular take on WP:NPOV to "leave the project" appears to be what they do. "Civility" is the licence to kill. Sarah777 (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can present evidence that a group of admins is conspiring to target any ethnic group on Wikipedia then please compile your evidence. Until such evidence is presented then such ugly accusations are not appropriate. Every action by every person is documented here, so if there is such a conspiracy then it should be easy to document. Chillum 23:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillum I don't have a dog in this fight and I'm not very familiar with the content disputes involved, but I have noticed a double standard in enforcement and a lot of push being put on the group of editors on one side of the dispute. I have no way of knowing editors' ethnicities, but it does appear that there are many British editors with strong points of view and a group of Irish editors that has very much been put on the defensive.

That being said, I don't want to feed into any paranoia or to connect any dots. We have to assume the best. So let's focus on the real problem, which appears to me to be a series of unconnected dots where editors and in many cases admins are going after those they disagree with rather than proceeding through appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms (which I'm the first to admit, suck).

As far as I can tell Sarah's note was a collegial pick me up to another editor who had been targeted, so the accusations of disruption are clear violations of the civility guideline (see the section on misrepresentations). The very unbalanced and disproportionate response by those with tools against those without tools (and the ganging up) is also very troubling.

If GWH and others are serious about wanting to promote civility, they need to start with the po po and look into why many of them behave in such an unhelpful, disruptive and abusive manner. Once there's a more collegial environment at the top, and standards of enforcement, collegiality and helpfulness are improved there, I'm confident there will be less of a desire and need to use bad words to alleviate the stress and tension of trying to navigate the gang warfare. This seems especially clear in this case, where the profane F-bomb dropping by an admin went without comment except for expressions of support (and that was in a case where they were pointed at an editor in a dispute not dropped ironically to lighten tension and to point out the humorous irony while dealing with the burden of unfair enforcement). And yet when Sarah used the same profanities in a collegial manner, all hell seems to have broken loose. So I ask again, what gives? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the accusation that is ugly, it is the reality that is ugly. You hardly think veteran Admins are going to be silly enough to leave "beyond doubt" diffs? They block "civilians" (me being a case in point) without any such "evidence" - based on "patterns" and "histories" and self-fulling "records". There are Wiki-essay's on that topic as it relates to non-Admins. If a certain editor is involved in sanctioning a number of Irish editors who take a similar general perspective on WP:NPOV then I suggest the onus is on the perpetrator to demonstrate that there is no bias. Surely Admins must be held to higher standards than the plebs, seeing as they are set up as judge and jury in areas such as civility where the "offences" are totally subjective and proportionality or parity are non-existent. I'd be more impressed if you devoted your time to the various Admins whose actions are unacceptable, who make WP:POINTY blocks and clearly revel in their power to clobber productive editors . That is a target rich environment to use an Americanism. I shouldn't need to point you to particular examples. Sarah777 (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, when I saw that heading, it seemed clear you (Sarah) were making a point, though I didn't see it as a WP:POINT. It was mildly provocative and not particularly constructive, given the block had expired days ago and everyone had moved on, but hardly disruptive. Further, it was no more provocative and no less disruptive than the liberal overuse of "fuck" by Pedro in the first place, which was also done to make a point (but not a WP:POINT).

A small group of Irish editors feel persecuted by Admins reacting to their lengthy block logs (and perhaps, to some extent, that is justified), in turn they react to such blocks with outbursts of anger which results in further blocks, which is cited in justification for future blocks, which results in further anger.... Its a classic vicious circle and a difficult one to break. But what we can do is stop propagating it needlessly. Both sides can work on that by:

• Admins - stop rising to every slightly incivil comment with warnings (read: threats), especially those made in response to admin actions
• Sarah et al. - stop baiting admins with taunts, you are linguistically skilled enough to effectively criticize any admin action without resorting to personal attacks

Guess what? in any given kerfuffle, only takes one of these to occur to break this cycle. If you take turns then everything should work out fine and you both still get 50% of the satisfaction. Rockpocket 01:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Rock - see that? Took some time out and now all is peace and quiet! (I hope, haven't looked at d'oul watch list yet - almost afraid to....) Sarah777 (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well this takes the biscuit

Hi Sara, Are you using a 'Dunk puppet'? [9] :) Autodidactyl (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC) :)

Eh......I thought wheat based stuff caused heartburn! Sarah777 (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Volcanoes in Ireland

Oh then if there are extinct volcanoes I stand corrected. My understanding was that only a country on a fault line could have a volcano. But I'm definitely not a geography wiz. Ikari (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers

What happen to your talkpage? it's become very wide. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The main culprit was a malformed link in the ANI notice above, which I changed to correct formation and made work properly. I also reduced the padding left and right on the chartreuse navigation section at the top from 200px to 10px, but Sarah I left the previous coding there inside an HTML comment for you in case you want to go back to the previous look. Sswonk (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The ANI message was malformed was it? Kind of a poetic symmetry in that. Sarah777 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I held off on exclaiming it was "Pedroed-up" but I simply can't resist. Sswonk (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

LoL! I had to google that. The new formatting is a thing of beauty so I'll keep it as you left it :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Pedroed-up, what's that? Or am I better off not knowing? GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh....dip your toes in here......

For my usage, pedroed-up is an oblique reference to that actual topic at the ANI linked above. Read the ANI and links to understand. "You really pedroed that up, big time" where SNAFU becomes SNAPU (thx BL). Now, Sarah, in googling may have found reference to the incident involving baseball player Pedro Martinez in which, during a bench-clearing brawl, he noticed rotund 72-year old Don Zimmer, a coach on the opposing team, charging at him full speed. Martinez is thin as a rail and smallish, so rather than be stampeded he defended himself by grabbing Zimmer's head and tossing him to one side.[10] This has entered urban slang in some quarters as "He got pedroed", i.e. stopped unmercifully by someone grabbing by the head and throwing to the ground. Are you better off? Full of Americanisms, but Sarah got a laugh so I'll go with her interpretation, if that is it, for how one handles charges. Sswonk (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And I got a chuckle at the idea of a charging 72 year old called "Zimmer"! I guess he wasn't in a good frame of mind? *groans* :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

My God, we are separated by a common language! Though GBS was discussing England and America, that groaner got me coming from an Irishwoman just as badly. I had absolutely no idea what a Zimmer was and had to search around. That's so Pedroed up! Sswonk (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Odder still: If someone had asked me (till I read the article) where the term "Zimmer frame" came from I'd have sworn it was an Americanism! On this side of the pond a "walker" is something you put a baby in from about 6 months till they can walk by themselves. Sarah777 (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle, Martinez -vs- Zimmer. Or shall we call it Zimmer down, now (a pun on 'simmer down, now'). GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not call it Zimmerman as in Bob?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To sum up the playful confusion found in this thread and perhaps the past couple of months in general for you, I've created an icon I called "the Gubu", of course you could change it to "the Sarah777" but I have some Irish in me and I think it covers my disposition at times as well. Apt name, or not? Sswonk (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)