User talk:Domer48/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Domer48, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Logoistic 01:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Domer48, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! One Night In Hackney 14:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding your way around
Getting Started
How you can help
Getting Help
Getting along

Think you may need this --Phoblacht 12:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions

I'm an admin and I've been asked by User:Logoistic to review your contributions. You're a new editor, so leeway is extended at this stage, but I have to advise you that his points are correct. You should address edits not the editor. Please study his advice carefully as it is sound. In particular read up on the policies that he has linked to, such as WP:NPA. These are very important. You might like also to read WP:TPG. The talk page is most not a forum for personal opinions: it is a workshop for improving the article. I've noted that you have now posted a conciliatory message offering a more collegiate approach, and am pleased about this. Persistance of your initial conduct would only lead to warnings and then to a block on editing. No one wants this and your enthusiasm is appreciated, but wiki policies must be followed. You can find some useful ones here. It is necessary to reference statements. Any non-referenced statements can be removed by any other editor at any time. I am sure other editors will be pleased to advise you, so ease up a little and get to know how wiki works. Then you'll be OK. Reference advice below. Tyrenius 20:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you work closely with more established editors, ask their advice and take it for the time being. When you get more experienced, you can always revisit the earlier articles you worked on and re-assess, as you'll be in a much stronger position then to maybe argue a difficult case. Starting off in wiki, expecially with contentious articles, is a minefield for the new editor. Tyrenius 05:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Guide to referencing

Using references (citations)

I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can removed unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started.

Good references

A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use Reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites, and official documents. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is Original research, e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research.

Simple referencing

The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section. This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:

==Notes and references==
<references/>

The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):

<ref>             </ref>

Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference.

Test it out

Copy the following text, open the edit box for this page, paste it at the bottom (inserting your own text) and save the page:

==Reference test==
This is the text which you are going to reference.<ref> Substitute your own text in this space </ref>
==Notes and references==
<references/>

(End of text to copy and paste.)

Information to include

You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For a book it might look like this:

<ref> Smith, Timothy: "A Guide to Planets", page 29. Solar Publishing, 2001 </ref>

An online newspaper source would be:

<ref> Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', [[2005-10-27]]. Retrieved on [[2005-10-27]]. </ref>

Note the square brackets around the URL. The format is [URL Title] with a space between the URL and the Title. If you do this the URL is hidden and the Title shows as the link. Use double apostrophes for the article title, and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics).

The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead. Wikilinks (double square brackets which create an internal link to a wikipedia article) function inside the ref tags. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings.

Citation templates

You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference

Same ref used twice or more

The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code:

<ref name=smith> DETAILS OF REF </ref>

The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:

<ref name=smith/>

You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them.

Example

You can see refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is.

Next step

When you become familiar with the process, the next step is to have one section, "Footnotes", with links embedded in the text, and another, "References", which lists all of your references alphabetically with full details, e.g. for a book:

Lincoln, Abraham; Grant, U. S.; & Davis, Jefferson (1861). Resolving Family Differences Peacefully (3rd ed.). Gettysburg: Printing Press. ISBN 0-12-345678-9.

If you're ready to go into it further, these pages have detailed information:

I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know.

Tyrenius 20:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Ireland

Hello Dormer, thanks for your message re Young Ireland. I managed to insert one citation for the 'monster meeting' from Roy Foster's History of Ireland. I noticed you have made progress in adding citations to John Mitchell. You appear to have access to alot of literature on the subject and I look forward to seeing your footnotes to Young Ireland as well. Natalie West 13:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dormer, I have replied to some of your points on the talk page, but I shall have to do some more reading before I can reply in full. I am interested in reading some of the primary sources you mentioned and will have to visit the British library for them Natalie West 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

Good job with the referencing you just did here, Domer. Logoistic 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding images

Hi Domer. I'd be glad to help. This is a two-step process.

First, you need to upload the picture, either to the English Wikipedia, or if you think it will be useful in other languages as well, to Commons. To upload it to the English site only, click on "Upload File" in the left column of any Wikipedia screen. This brings up a rather intimidating page, but as long as the image is free of copyright or uploadable as "fair use", you shouldn't have any problems. Locate the image on your hard drive using the Browse button, and then in the Summary box type or paste in the source. Under "Licensing", choose the copyright category the image falls under. Most of the images I upload are old, so I use one of the two "author died more than 100 years ago" tags.

Uploading to Commons is similar. Use this link. Commons does not accept fair use images, however.

Once the image has been uploaded to either place, it is available to add to an article in the English Wikipedia. You will need to type a link like this at the place in the article you want the image to appear (at the top of the article, usually, for portraits). 

[[Image:William Smith O'Brien.jpg|thumb|William Smith O'Brien]]

The first part here is the name of the image, which you can copy from the upload page after the upload finishes. "|thumb" is necessary to integrate the image with the article. You can also add "|left" after thumb if you want the image to appear on the left side. (The right side is the default.) Finally, the last bit of text is the caption.

Let me know if you have any other questions. --Rbraunwa 22:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference advice

I'm glad you're settling in. The best way to learn is to watch how others do things. Wiki is a culture with its own conventions, not necessarily what's written down always. When you say quotes, I think you mean information. A quote is something copied word for word and put in double speech marks. If it is a quote, then it should be exactly as written in the original (with the ref to show where it came from). Quotes are used sparingly and only for special reasons of significance. More often the original would not be quoted, but used as a source of information, when it would be paraphrased with words rearranged, which is necessary for copyright reasons, and the ref given to show the source of the information. This has been done correctly in the edit you mention by Ben W Bell, though the personal content of the edit summary was unnecessary.[1]

It is correct that if there is a consensus, this should be followed until a different consensus is achieved. However, if that is the reason given, then the person should be able to point you to the location of that consensus to prove their point. I note an article is called Derry. Its talk page says:

Note to editors: the agreed compromise for the Derry/Londonderry name dispute is that the city page shall be titled Derry and the county page shall be titled County Londonderry.

That is about the titles of those pages, not necessarily usage in other articles, though it does provide weight for it to be adopted elsewhere. See also WP:IMOS#Derry_.2F_Londonderry. See also Derry-Londonderry name dispute and its talk page. See also Talk:Seamus Heaney. Basically you need to read up on everything and see how things are shaping up generally. You might like to consult User:Djegan, though he seems to be mostly leaving the project.

My advice is to leave the knotty problems, and get on with the material which can be added easily. The knots get sorted out anyway in due course, and it's probably better to become more familiar with all the wiki processes, e.g. WP:DR, before you get too involved with trying to resolve them, but that is your choice. There are other people also addressing the same issue. You should watch them, and maybe ask them. These things are often not clear-cut, and require a lot of editorial dialogue to get anywhere. Get back to me if you need to .

Tyrenius 23:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Ireland

Hello Domer48, I came across you name, through the edits of an article I'm intrested in. You have a lot of good information, so get it out there! Don’t hold back on the editing of material that is not backed up! If you need a dig out give us a shout! --Phoblacht 11:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good post Phoblacht, I second that.--Vintagekits 13:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles

Would these articles be up your street,[2][3][4],[5], [[6]] take it handy --Phoblacht 15:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Thomas Davis Young Irelander.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Thomas Davis Young Irelander.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article advice

Not much has happened on those articles for a while. Certainly bad info and unreferenced material can be deleted. The key thing is to make it clear in edit summary and on talk page exactly what you are doing and why (in edit summary it's a good idea to mention "see talk page"). Then it is apparent that you are acting in good faith and enables any other interested editors to comment. As far as merging goes (see WP:MERGE) you can either tag both articles, or be bold and do it. As these are not particularly active, the second might be the best option. Select the article to be the one remaining and turn the other into a redirect by deleting the text and place this on the page:

#REDIRECT [[NAME OF DESTINATION ARTICLE]]

If you want to keep some of the text from the redirect article, there are two ways. If you just want some information, then you can rewrite the actual text with a paraphrase, so it avoids copyright issues. If you want not just the info but the actual words as they are written down, then cut and paste into the remaining article. However, to preserve GFGL, you must state in edit summaries and talk pages of both articles that you have done this. By the way, cut and paste should never be used to move a whole article to a different name, as it loses the edit history: use the move button for that. Tyrenius 23:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Ireland Tags

Domer, I've left a reply to your message here on my talk page. Logoistic 23:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal report to Tyrenius; comment

Tyrenius, how do you go about having users blocked, who engage in nothing but vile and vulgar edits. I am referring to the Irish Potato Famine Article. Some examples of which are [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15]], [[16]]. This is only three days of it and it must be so disheartening to editors, who have to deal with this type of behaviour. Thanks for your time and patience, Regards --Domer48 20:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked for six months. See WP:VAND for how you can usefully help fight vandalism. --Guinnog 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that a lot of this goes on at times, so you must get used to it. However, there were a number of different vandal addresses in the list and, apart from one at the moment (with only one edit) they've been blocked for periods up to 6 months. When there's vandalism, revert, and leave a warning on the user talk page, generally starting with a low level warning 1 and increasing to level 2, 3, 4. You can skip if it's serious vandalism. When you run out of warnings, or if it's ongoing and heavy, then report to WP:AIV. You'll find that a lot of vandalism is lightweight drive-by stuff, e.g. just a couple of edits and that's it. Soem schools and colleges are notorious for it. Sometimes vandals end up as good editors, so there is a policy of encouragement to do that in the first instance. Tyrenius 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find useful warning templates on WP:WARN to go on the user's talk page. You should always substitute substitute a warning template, so for the templae {{uw-vandalism1}} you actually type {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}. Most, but not all, templates are "substituted". Tyrenius 03:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPIR

Hi there. You strike me as a person that would be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism. Just in case you didn't know it was there. -- Pauric (talk-contributions) 16:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel O'Connell

I removed the reference to the Fenians, you could have do so yourself. I thought of them automatically when a reference was made to secret societies. James Stephens, O'Donovan Rossa, etc. were not Americans, but I am not going to quibble.

As far as the rest goes, I don't know what else you want. I only re-edited because you dismembered my quote (in the first paragraph) and I fixed it.

I am assuming good faith and I hope you do as well. Also, NO OFFENSE, but please use spell check, you would be surprised how poorly your messages read.

Yours, O'Donoghue 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. remember O'Connell was not an Irish Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The actions he took bordered on extortion, no matter how laudable the goals and regardless of what John Mitchel may have written. That needs to be clear in light of the historical consequences and repercussions, even to the present day.O'Donoghue 20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were Americans, read what I said, and check your own message, and see how it reads. You olny re-edited because you think I dismembered your quote! That is not a justifiable reason for an edit. In fact that is disruptive behaviour. On the discussion page I justified my edit. If you question my reason for it, the discussion page is the place to raise it. You on the other hand did not, so if I’m reading you right, all your edits were based on the fact I edited a line out of your quote. What I now want, is for you to Replace the material you have edited, that is the referenced material I added, place the tags above the page, that is what I would like you to do. On O’Connell, what ever you think about him, doses not interest me in the slightest. As long as its referenced and a reliable source. (it dose not even have to be true). You do not know what my view of O’Connell is, so do not assume to tell me, editors have to assume a NPOV. You on the other hand have expressed an opinion, and will be judged on all future edits in relation to O’Connell. P.S No Offence taken re spelling, I would not be that petty. Regards --Domer48 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last message for now

I restored the neutrality, unreferenced tags as per your request. The reason I removed those tags is because I had already added POV tags to the sections in question which I viewed as POV, which are still there and which comprise some/most of your contributions, which may be why you are upset. If so, sorry.

As far as "referenced material" you claim I removed, I do not know what you are talking about, so fix it yourself, I am not your servant. Just don't dismember my first paragraph quote as you did before.

Also don't threaten me because I hold an opinion - anything I added to the O'Connell page I provided a reference for. However I removed some of the unreferenced tags which littered the entire article because they averaged one per every two lines or so - THAT IS OVERKILL and a misuse of the unreferenced tag.

Regards,O'Donoghue 21:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary and secondary sourced referenced material is not POV, the source of your material is questionable, the reliability of it I have shown to be dubious, and the only thing I removed was a POV which was not even in the quote you used. In relation to unreferenced tags, I much prefer them, to cutting out unreferenced material. I like to provide editors the opportunity to reference their material. Changing your original message, was a bit silly, the history of it is there so now I do not know which one to answer [[17]]. What is the POV which compromises all my referenced material? Is it the source, is that the POV? I have used three, which one of them do you have a problem with? As to threatening you, what are you on about? As to the referenced material you removed, the second reference by Michael Doheny. The section tags are placed on referenced edits by me, and unreferenced sections you leave, and remove citation tags? Your tone and attitude is argumentative, and doses not assume good fate, your use of tags is selective, sort out the material you have removed, and remove the selective tags. If you persist with this behaviour, I will ask for an administrator to review all the pertinent material. Regards--Domer48 22:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hibernian Rifles

I started a page about the Hibernian Rifles - its more your expertise, maybe you should have a look at it.--Vintagekits 20:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vintagekits, I am not familiar with the Hibernian Rifles . I will look them up and reference some information on them. I am trying to focus on the Young Irelanders at the minute, which covers a whole raft of areas. It seems a bit of a long road, when I look at some of the articles. Like I said, if you need help with checking references, I have access to a large selection of books. Regards --Domer48 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel O'Connell

Your attempts at censorship re O'Connell are not appreciated. If you persist I will take the matter to the Administrator's Noticeboard. You came to Wikipedia with an agenda:

The period of history covered by the Young Irelanders, or correctly titled Irish Confederation, is deeply interesting. In it we find the origins of the Republican physical force tradition. Through their writings we see the evolution of Irish Nationalism forged into a coherently articulated force. While they have left us a boundless spring of primary sources, the misconceptions created around them by unscrupulous writers, who believe they can shape the present by manipulating our understanding of the past is a challenge to all right thinking people who believe that history belongs to us all. A start must be made to address this; therefore I will place my axe to the root, and would invite you to do the same.

However, if you think you are going to impose your views on this page or any other you are mistaken. Your rv of my edits (for which you cited "see discussion page" in the edit summary although there is nothing there regarding this matter) is neither more nor less than an attempt at censorship. You can deify John Mitchel all you like, but keep it in your private writings, not a public access encyclopaedia. Jill Teed 18:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the discussion page on the Daniel O’Connell Article, you will see the reason for the revert. And hands up, I have an agenda! An agenda which I spell out on my user page, which you helpfully provided. To correct the information on Young Ireland, and back it up with referenced material. Your accusation against me assumes bad fate, and is against wiki policy. You should address the edits of a user, and not the user, and not engage in this type of behaviour. I will now point this matter to an administrator, should you continue to engage me in such a hostile manner. Regards

No problem

Figured that information would be useful to you! One Night In Hackney303 20:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Depiction of John Mitchel 1947 Wolf Tone Annual.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Depiction of John Mitchel 1947 Wolf Tone Annual.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. 20:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have left a question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, and will check it out in my public library. Regards--Domer48 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Unfortunately the other editor got to your edit before you had posted to the talk page. However, good faith edits are never vandalism, and I see your edit as in good faith. Nor do I see your statement of intent as one to advocate POV, so that is a negative interpretation of it. There will always be differences of opinion occurring. If you want to keep your nose clean, follow a golden rule of one revert only, and then taking it to the talk page. This is WP:BRD. That way you never risk getting blocked for edit warring, let alone WP:3RR. Take the long term view. It doesn't have to be put right in 2 seconds. Wiki is going to be around for decades. Put your case and invite the other editor to discuss. If they fail to do this, then they will be in the wrong. If discussion doesn't solve matters, work through WP:DRV. Always comment on editors, not edits. Keep your tone moderate and reasonable, putting the case rationally, citing sources clearly, not putting opinions. Study the policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:BLP plus WP:RS and refer to them. Tyrenius 01:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI (wikiquote)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion/Jeremiah_O%27Donovan_Rossa -- Tyrenius 04:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work there. I've left a message on WQ.[18]. Tyrenius 01:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel O'Connell

I have restored the text you deleted unilaterally. Your one-sided use of John Mitchel's POV and the term "West Britons" shows that it is your POV which is prevalent here.70.19.39.170 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection has been requested.70.19.39.170 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what you are talking about - "what banned user"? - but there is no way you can justify using John Mitchel's position as the default and accepted version of history without at least showing both sides of the coin. Moreover, your use of the word "West Britons" is not referenced and exposes your bias and POV.70.19.39.170 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My apologies. Apparently you didn't use this to refer to another editor. My mistake. However, it does remain in the article and, as it's not a direct quote, should be reviewed for POV, Robert's comment notwithstanding - Alison☺ 20:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alison, I really appreciate that, and it actually is a direct quote. I will put it in inverted commas, so as not to have the same thing happen again. Regards --Domer48 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Mitchel

I'm glad to have been of assistance. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style and its associated guides are really useful tools in writing better articles. Keep up the great work. Ground Zero | t 16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Front_Page_Irish_War_News.JPG

Sorted.--Vintagekits 15:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Emma Groves.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Emma Groves.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Gaillimh is correct.[19] It is a purely formal notice without value judgement and a standard disambig practice. Tyrenius 18:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Anon blocked for continuing vandalism. Tyrenius 19:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re The Irish Famine (book)

Well, yes it was a borderline close, and I wasn't completely confidant that I closed it correctly. My reasoning was: the argument per WP:BK is well taken, but it's not up to me the closer to have an opinion on that, but rather to gauge if the community found it convincing. The tally was 5-3 in favor of Delete. 3/8 did not find the BP:BK argument convincing (and one Delete comment was only "leaning towards Delete". And the Keep commentors did have cogent arguments - that the existence of reviews, or the notability of the authors, showed sufficient notability. However, I didn't follow Paxsel's links, and I didn't know they were bogus. That makes a considerable difference.

It's entirely possible that you are correct. It was a close call. However, I don't think I'm allowed to just unilaterally change my close once its made, and even if I am I don't feel quite comfortable doing so. You can take it to WP:DRV, but better would be to just immediately nominate it again at WP:AFD; a "no consensus" close allows a renomination to try again to get a consensus. Herostratus 14:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, I'm just not sure I agree with you. For instance, your response to User:FlamingSpear invoking Wikipedia:Notability (books). Does this entirely refute FlamingSpear? I do not think that it does. Wikipedia:Notability (books) is a guidline, not an iron rule. When an AfD garners comments such as these:

  • Keep on the grounds that it is a work by a notable writer (two of them, actually), and as such plays an important role in interpreting that writer's personal creative vision. FlamingSpear 03:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added links to two reviews in decent publications - New Statesman and Socialist Review. Apparently it was also in the London Review of Books - but can't find that online. Here are links to two sites showing the book is part of the reading list for undergraduate courses at the University of Aberdeen [20] and University of Adelaide [21]. Without selective quoting Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria one says a book may be notable when...
    "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." Therefore, these non-trivial reviews are enough to establish notability. Paxse 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)    [reply]
  • Keep Although needs re-write to use the 3rd party reviews - there are multiple 3rd party reviews: Socialist review / New Statesman / Americamagazine that can be used. Kernel Saunters 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

without a good strong refutation either by argument or numbers, I think that the Keep camp has enough weight to prevent us from saying that there is clear consensus. It is a scholarly work and has garnered some reviews, after all. I don't really have an opinion on whether the book is article-worthy or not, but three commentors thought so - against only five Delete comments, the nominator. And one of the Deletes is actually given as only "leaning toward delete". And two more Delete commentors do not make new arguments but just repeat "not notable". Another Delete commentor was originally a Keep but changed to calling for deletion because "even author of page claims non-notability". But the author of the page is just another editor; once a page is written it belongs to the community and the author does not have special provenance to make decisions on it. Yes the page author presumably knows the subject well, but the other commentors are not chopped liver. So I do not find that a strong argumente. The bottom line is: whether the book fails WP:BOOK and should therefore be deleted I cannot say, but several editors didn't think so.

I appreciate your argument, but I'm not going to change the close and delete the article. Since the AfD was closed as No Consensus, there is no prejudice against re-nominating it for deletion, immediately if you so choose. I think that is your best route, if you really think the article needs to be deleted. Herostratus 19:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Front_Page_Irish_War_News.JPG

Sorted.--Vintagekits 15:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Emma Groves.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Emma Groves.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Gaillimh is correct.[22] It is a purely formal notice without value judgement and a standard disambig practice. Tyrenius 18:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Anon blocked for continuing vandalism. Tyrenius 19:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re The Irish Famine (book)

Well, yes it was a borderline close, and I wasn't completely confidant that I closed it correctly. My reasoning was: the argument per WP:BK is well taken, but it's not up to me the closer to have an opinion on that, but rather to gauge if the community found it convincing. The tally was 5-3 in favor of Delete. 3/8 did not find the BP:BK argument convincing (and one Delete comment was only "leaning towards Delete". And the Keep commentors did have cogent arguments - that the existence of reviews, or the notability of the authors, showed sufficient notability. However, I didn't follow Paxsel's links, and I didn't know they were bogus. That makes a considerable difference.

It's entirely possible that you are correct. It was a close call. However, I don't think I'm allowed to just unilaterally change my close once its made, and even if I am I don't feel quite comfortable doing so. You can take it to WP:DRV, but better would be to just immediately nominate it again at WP:AFD; a "no consensus" close allows a renomination to try again to get a consensus. Herostratus 14:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, I'm just not sure I agree with you. For instance, your response to User:FlamingSpear invoking Wikipedia:Notability (books). Does this entirely refute FlamingSpear? I do not think that it does. Wikipedia:Notability (books) is a guidline, not an iron rule. When an AfD garners comments such as these:

  • Keep on the grounds that it is a work by a notable writer (two of them, actually), and as such plays an important role in interpreting that writer's personal creative vision. FlamingSpear 03:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added links to two reviews in decent publications - New Statesman and Socialist Review. Apparently it was also in the London Review of Books - but can't find that online. Here are links to two sites showing the book is part of the reading list for undergraduate courses at the University of Aberdeen [23] and University of Adelaide [24]. Without selective quoting Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria one says a book may be notable when...
    "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." Therefore, these non-trivial reviews are enough to establish notability. Paxse 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)    [reply]
  • Keep Although needs re-write to use the 3rd party reviews - there are multiple 3rd party reviews: Socialist review / New Statesman / Americamagazine that can be used. Kernel Saunters 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

without a good strong refutation either by argument or numbers, I think that the Keep camp has enough weight to prevent us from saying that there is clear consensus. It is a scholarly work and has garnered some reviews, after all. I don't really have an opinion on whether the book is article-worthy or not, but three commentors thought so - against only five Delete comments, the nominator. And one of the Deletes is actually given as only "leaning toward delete". And two more Delete commentors do not make new arguments but just repeat "not notable". Another Delete commentor was originally a Keep but changed to calling for deletion because "even author of page claims non-notability". But the author of the page is just another editor; once a page is written it belongs to the community and the author does not have special provenance to make decisions on it. Yes the page author presumably knows the subject well, but the other commentors are not chopped liver. So I do not find that a strong argumente. The bottom line is: whether the book fails WP:BOOK and should therefore be deleted I cannot say, but several editors didn't think so.

I appreciate your argument, but I'm not going to change the close and delete the article. Since the AfD was closed as No Consensus, there is no prejudice against re-nominating it for deletion, immediately if you so choose. I think that is your best route, if you really think the article needs to be deleted. Herostratus 19:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource

Done. Tyrenius 17:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Famine (book) (2nd nomination)

Try it now. On second nomination, the page has to be named something like "2nd nomination" to avoid conflict with the first nomination page. I added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 4. Herostratus 20:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

You can put {{Verify}} at the top of the article. Also see Wikipedia:Template messages and Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles in particular. Tyrenius 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book) (2nd nomination)

Hello Paxse, your attempts to disrupt my nomination for the AfD will not go unmentioned. I have in one instance raised this matter with an administrator. Your attempts to justify putting misleading information before the first nomination are facile. You have had plenty of time and opportunity to address this before my re-nomination, and you failed to do so. It takes years for a book to appear on the curriculum of any college, and only then, when it has assumed some considerable notability. The fact that you simply Googled the title for references, dose not lend weight to any of your contributions. It shows a complete lack of interest in, or understanding of, or respect for the editors who have an interest in the subject involved. Your recent contribution to this AfD, where you dissected and cut up my edit, rendering it incoherent and disjointed is completely objectionable. I want you to return my contribution to its original condition, and place your comments below it, and refrain from any further attempts at justification on the AfD page. A simple comment directing editors to this discussion here will suffice. --Domer48 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Domer48, your reply to my AfD argument was 900 words and used a variety of spacing and different levels of indent [25]. In it you fired off a variety of criticisms of my actions, the sources I added to the article and threatened to report me to an admin. I replied to each point as briefly as I could, because I felt obliged to explain and defend myself from your criticisms and accusations. You were (and are) obviously furious. Can I suggest that we both step back from this AfD - just let it run without further comment. I'll do the same and we can both do something more productive and take some time to chill out. Let's talk about this in a day or two when things have calmed down. I'm very happy for you to move both your comments and my replies (though not my vote) to the AfD talk page. Or I'm happy to do it if you prefer. I agree that our lengthy comments and arguments make it more difficult for other editors to easily summarise the debate. I will cross post this to your talk page as well. Cheers, Paxse 17:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that tag. No problem at all. I used <nowiki></nowiki> around the AfD notification tag, these 'nowiki' tags allow you to display another tag without actually triggering it and making it display the full message. This was so you could cut and paste straight from my talk page. I was being too clever by half by showing you the tag instead of simply pointing you to the Wiki page. When you copied the tag from the edit window and pasted to the user page the <nowiki></nowiki> tags came along for the ride and thus prevented the message from displaying. I edited the user page and deleted the 'nowiki's and presto - it displayed. Cheers, Paxse 12:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Advice

I don't know what to say. Usually AfD comments are supposed to be pretty short and succinct, although longer comments do occur often enough. I guess I would just let the closing admin sort it all out. If it was me, I wouldn't worry too much about it. The existence of the article is not hurting the Wikipedia. If it gets kept, let it go for six months or a year and come back to it then. Herostratus 17:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a tag

Thanking you for your recent contribution to Wikipedia. To help improve Articles, contributions must be verifiable, and need to have references and sources to facilitate this. Material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed. Thank you again for taking the time to contribute and if you need help with editing, this link may help, how to edit a page. Regards

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irish Famine (book) (2nd nomination)

Hi. I'd be happy to provide my reasoning.

The basis of your nomination was that the book, in your view, was not notable. User:A1octopus agreed with you but used a standard of notability that, though certainly valid, is significantly stricter than the current wording at WP:BK: "internationally famous, on several best-seller lists, and/or a spark of major controversy in notable publications". User:Vintagekits also agreed, stating that "[t]he book itself is not notable". Though Vintagekits did not provide additional explanation, I presume s(he) mean that the book does not meet any of the criteria specified at WP:BK.

User:Paxse responded by (1) providing links to multiple reviews and (2) stating that the "book also meets the minimum threshold standards for WP:BK as it has an ISBN number and is cataloged by the National Library of Ireland". The latter is, of course, the bare minimum that that a book must satisfy to even be considered for inclusion, so I did not give it much weight. However, the presence of reviews does allow a case to be made that the book meets Criterion 1 of WP:BK, as was argued by User:Paxse and User:Kernel Saunters.

You challenged the ability of the reviews to establish notability on the basis that they were not reliable/were from commercial sites or provided only trivial coverage of the book. Regarding the former: WP:BK does not reject the use of sources from commercial sites as long as they are reliable and independent of the authors/publishers. What the notability guideline states, specifically, is that being listed "at online bookstores such as BarnesAndNoble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability". Regarding the latter: the triviality of coverage is something that can be debated and I feel that in this instance there was sufficient disagreement about it to prevent the reaching of a consensus to delete the article. As you noted, one of the defining features of Criterion 1 of WP:BK is that there must be "sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary". However, you were unable to convince Paxse and Kernel Saunters that such information was not present. Indeed, the existence of the "Critical response" section suggests that the article already has grown beyond "a simple plot summary".

I will echo Herostratus' comment that the role of the closer is not so much to evaluate the article itself, but to determine whether there exists a policy-informed consensus to delete the article. That does not seem to me to be the case here. I would be happy to provide any further clarifications. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response here. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 20:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah777

Hi Dormer; I don't think you got a good steer from that page you visited! Check out: [[26]] As I understand it (and I'm no expert) you can just sign after "users who endorse this summary" - my defence that is, not the accusers - unless you agree with tham; or you can give a view like Swatjester; or you can sign up with the pots - (Who have now added SLEEPLESSNESS to my many crimes!!)(Sarah777 23:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Young Islanders

I've taken the liberty of creating a template for you, {{Books by Young Irelanders}}. That way all the details are held in a centralised place, and all you need to do to include it is type {{Books by Young Irelanders}}, and you get this:

{{Books by Young Irelanders}}

Any good? One Night In Hackney303 13:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I amended some of the inconsistent formatting anyway, but feel free to make any changes you need to. One Night In Hackney303 13:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project ratings

Entirely up to you, although Mitchel certainly wasn't a stub! My knowledge of the period in question is somewhat limited, so I was going to ask you to see about the importance of various articles anyway. General rule of thumb - essential article that every encyclopedia should have an article about with regards to Republicanism - Top importance. Current articles rated top importance are here. High importance is slightly less but still an important article, and are here. Unless people are particularly significant they are generally mid or low importance. As strange as this may sound when you look at the bigger picture of the lengthy history of Republicanism, an article on a Sinn Féin member who's just been elected as an MLA is generally low importance, unless for example they have a long (and preferably documented) history within the movement. One Night In Hackney303 13:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Irish Famine

I'm curious, what's your source for the claims you just made on the Sarah777 RfC talk page about the large number of commissions and enquiries prior to the great famine? I've not heard of them and they are not mentioned on the actual Great Irish Famine article. Maybe you should add them. MarkThomas 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bhoys from Seville

Thank you for your contribution on the above AfD. Your time and effort is much appriciated. regards--Vintagekits 01:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Higgins

Hi. See that article's talk page. Until a compromise is found, please don't revert. bigpad 12:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I hadn't seen that particular discussion. It is very involved, although I agree that a decision needs to be taken. One that pleases everyone is going to be hard! bigpad 15:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report

Hi. I've reported you on the 3RR violations page here. --Mal 09:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dormer, I am not one to talk but may I, as someone who has just come through a month of "war" give you my one Big Lesson: Don't Allow Yourself to be Goaded. As you can see from my RfC, some editors feed off the responses to build a case out of comments much milder than they themselves habitually use. So - leave as few hostages to fortune as possible! And remember; it is common practice to accuse your opponent of whatever one is doing oneself. You will by flummoxed with accusations of WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and on and on by the folk who themselves can barely make a post without breaching several of them. (And I am NOT talking about Mal/Setanta here). The practice is rampant on Wiki. I'm thinking of trying to get a new Wiki guideline put in place: WP:DAYBG. (Sarah777 11:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I do hope you're not suggesting that I have "goaded" anybody Sarah. Please be careful with what you are trying to suggest. I note you very specifically mention me, and say that you are not talking about me... yet you appear to be grooming this user in respect of what he might expect, and make these suggestions specifically in relation to this particular editing conflict in which myself and Domer are involved. I note that you haven't offered me any of your advice either. --Mal 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't groom people. But I like to help newcomers avoid the pitfalls. As I realised that you might think that I was referring to you, I made a point of specifically making it clear that I wasn't. You are not assuming good faith, and appear to be accusing me of telling lies, a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I have offered you advice in the past but, unlike Domer, you have ignored it. So the only advice I will offer you now is that you should cease your personal attacks. (Sarah777 23:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Well I would automatically assume good faith only, given our edit histories and interest in certain subjects, I was thinking perhaps there might be a specific interest taken - an interest which would conflict with impartiality when it comes to giving advice. So no, there was no personal attack against you - don't be making false allegations.
My statements were intended merely to clarify your position, which you have now done.
I don't recall you ever having offered me advice. I never got a welcome message when I first started editing here, nor any advice, of the kind you have offered Domer here, regarding my own 3RR problem in the past. --Mal 18:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

You are quite right to check yourself to avoid getting into hot water. It's easily done, as Sarah777 points out above. It's not necessary and it's not worth it. There is a lot of time to build an encyclopedia: things can get sorted out next month or even next year for that matter. They don't have to be sorted out in 5 minutes. The best thing is to drop it and go to a different article, and another and another for that matter. However, I have to say you are wrong in Emma Groves and I have pointed out the reasons why on the article talk page. It would be fine in a general magazine article, but not in the way we write wikipedia articles. It needs to concentrate on her, and it is woefully deficient in that regard at the moment. Surely there is more information to add. Tyrenius 16:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to get a proper photo of Emma Groves under GFDL for the article. Maybe she would release one, if asked. Tyrenius 18:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I was too busy looking at other things in the article. Well, family then or the United Campaign Against Plastic Bullets. By the way, there's a typo at the top of your user page "intrested". Tyrenius 18:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt sure an editor of your calibre would want to make an instant correction.:) Tyrenius 19:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sound stuff coming from Tyrenius, Domer. (btw - Apologies, I have been calling you Dormer, just spotted that now). I think you've escaped the 3RR, which is more than I managed!! All the Best (Sarah777 19:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think part of the problem, if I may be so bold Domer, is that you may not have assumed good faith with regard to me. By way of offering a proverbial olive branch, I'd like to let you know that as an editor of reasonable worth, my object is to see Wikipedia articles improve - particularly in quality. - and particularly articles relating to Northern Ireland (and Formula 1 and Dr Who etc etc).
I'll be honest with you and say that when I first saw the article I thought it was both a dump, a memorial and a mini-campaign in itself. By removing the material, I had hoped it would stir an editor knowledgeable about the person into improving the article by avoiding traps that many editors can fall into. I hope this goes some way to an explaination and to help you understand both my rationale and my attitude. --Mal 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR at Great Irish Famine

Hi, you just did a 3RR at Great Irish Famine - I don't want to report you, but given your general conduct towards me, feel that I should - do you wish to apologise and revert it back? I am talking about the "Suggestions of genocide" title. MarkThomas 18:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work away

OK, here it is. [27]

Ooops indeed Domer; but you stopped just short of breaching 3RR, as did Mark. (Sarah777 19:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Breach of WP:CIVIL at Great Irish Famine

Just noticed that you also in a comment line accused me of "bad faith edits" which is extremely rude, incivil and false. I intend to complain unless you apologise immediately. MarkThomas 18:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ye ye

Bed

And dumping me in it! :) Tyrenius 21:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foggy edits

To late, bad faith edits have started (in my opinion) again. --Domer48 20:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made some edits myself; sometimes paraphrasing is clearer than direct quotation, as Mark has pointed out. I think your new references are sound. I'm unclear what, exactly, the difference between your version and the reverted version (by Mark Thomas) is. I would be concerned if other editors were joining up to break the 3RR rule in spirit - so perhaps you'd explain why you think your text is being reverted (the commentary supplied is a bit opaque). (Sarah777 20:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Let's be clear. I am not reverting to "my" version as you incorrectly put it Sarah777, I have been reverting to a version by Sony-youth that was in my opinion better worded and less POV than the version Domer48 was inserting. Domer48 appears to have a habit of making fairly significant changes to this article without discussion and only discussing them subsequently on the talk page if someone challenges his/her edits. I am simply endeavouring to render this article less POV and more consensual as I suspect is Sony-youth. I find your mischaracterisation of my motives as "bad faith" and "breaking rules in spirit" to be really quite offensive and ask you to desist from further personal attacks of this nature. Thank you. MarkThomas 20:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the whole section.
Mark, please read my post. I did not accuse you of bad faith, of "reverting to your version" or personal attacks. False accusations of personal attacks, as this clearly is, are in breach of WP:CIVIL and may constitute a personal attack. Please stop accusing me of writing things that I clearly haven't. (Sarah777 20:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Of course as you know perfectly well, it was Domer48 who accused me of "bad faith". Sarah777 accused me of "breaking the spirit" of the rules.

Can I take the total lack of apology from both of you for these breaches as evidence that you stand by your offensive remarks? If so, take notice now that because you persistently and consistently act in this abusive manner, I intend to file formal complaints if I do not receive appropriate apologies. This is not the first time you have both been so offensive and I for one have had enough of it. MarkThomas 21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mark - Let's be clear. I am not reverting to "my" version as you incorrectly put it Sarah777 - direct quote. I am not a mind reader; that is what you wrote. Please stop making manifestly false allegations; I warn you again, it is a breach of WP:CIVIL. You are starting to try my patience; please stop. (Sarah777 21:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Do you in fact speak for Domer48 Sarah? The issue at hand is repeated use of the phrase "bad faith edit" in Domer48's comment lines referring to me. Additionally, above, you made negative remarks obviously aimed at me. However, to simplify matters, for now we will just pursue the issue of Domer48s allegation against me (repeated several times) of "bad faith edits". Since Domer48 has not apologised for that I must and will pursue it further. This really has nothing at all to do with you Sarah777 unless you are saying you are somehow responsible for Domer48s edits? MarkThomas 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mark - "the total lack of apology from both of you" - is what you said. I assumed, not unreasonably, that you were addressing me. No, I don't speak for Domer - I observe that he is well capable of speaking for himself. (Sarah777 22:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Mark I’m sick to the back teeth of your moaning. Your disruptive, argumentative, and have not produced one bit of referenced material. You have been blocked and warned for this already. And do not put on the injured tone, it dose not work here! All one has to do is review your track record to see how you have continually aggravated me. You have an opinion on everything and yet produce nothing but comment and opinion, with not the waif of a citation or a reference. I have told you in the past I do not wish to engage with you in conversation, and yet you persist. Buy a bottle of cop on and drink it! No go and report me again!!! --Domer48 22:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is insulting and wrong. I have edited the article in good faith, for example adding a citation to a long standing fact tag on a key issue (the number of deaths in the famine) and also correcting your multiple small errors and spelling mistakes. I don't in any way deserve the stream of vitriol above. I will be complaining. I tried. Wikipedia deserves better than this type of abusive editing which is very off-putting to new editors. I suspect you reserve the attacks for me and Sony-youth because we have the cheek to stand up to your bullying. MarkThomas 22:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for God sake guys - stop. Where is this going to lead? Go to bed - both of you! (Sarah777 22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sarah, are you a sock, Alison has to check us both out? What dose that intail. Should lighten things up. Regards --Domer48 22:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, am I a WHAT?!! Surely you would be the sock? Who said Alison has to check us out? Where? (Sarah777 22:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I know, I know a bit uncivil, [28] but there you go. Best Regards --Domer48 22:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good references

Domer, excellent. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the notion that the claim of genocide is historically insupportable has been "ripped apart". Brilliant work. Regards (Sarah777 20:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your continued support and encouragement, and Sara, you posts were very clear, and understandable by all but a fool, in my opinion. Your more than welcome to use my talk page for any discussion you may wish to have. Kind Regards --Domer48 20:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dormer, it's Sarah, not Sara. Please attend to your spelling. (Sarah777 21:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry SaraH, will happen again though. --Domer48 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish famine

Domer, this has got out of hand. My posts to the talk page were always in relation to the O'Donnell quote. I have no reason to want to keep discussion of the genocide claim out of the article. I want the case to be made strongly and clearly so readers can appreicate the extent and impact of the famine on Ireland, and how it relates to the national question and the history of relations between Britain and Ireland. The O'Donnell quote is misrepresented, but don't mix up my opposition to it being used in the way that it is with opposition to discussion of the genocide claim. There is plenty to support the argument but I would like it copper-fastened against the basic criticisms of the view. The famine is taught as genocide, alongside genocides, in a number of American states. See here for suggested curriculum material from New Jersey (or here for the same source listed it alongside the Holocaust, Cambodia, Native American genocide, Armenia and the Ukraine). There's lots of supporting material for the view, my only concern at the moment is the O'Donnell quote. I'm not harking back to it - its simply the only thing that I object to. --sony-youthpléigh 08:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations at Talk:Great_Irish_Famine#Manipulating_and_disruptive_editing_II

You are repeatedly accusing me of bad faith editing at the above-mentioned talk page location. This is against Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:AGF. I have repeatedly asked you not to do this. Please apologise and retract the statements. Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia.

Cease the attacks, please

I strongly recommend you observe WP:CIVIL with your comments, such as [29]. I can understand your frustration at this point, but you are getting to the point where your behaviour is just as watched as theirs. Yes, Mark called my attention to it, but in this case he does have a point. SirFozzie 20:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might point out that Sony has several times stated that he does not assume good faith in my case. Just for some balance. (Sarah777 22:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
When? Diffs would be nice. --sony-youthpléigh 22:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK Sony, here is one: "You [Sarah777] write: "So. Ireland is an "aberration" (Red King) and is "not a country" (Sony) ..." This is a vile misrepresentation of your fellow editors. I am hurt and offended that you would treat me in this way.
Taramoon, please refrain from categorising others for the purpose of purporting that their contributions are POV. --sony-youthtalk 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)"
That took about 15 seconds to find. You really want me to dig out more? Or maybe coming from Sony accusations of vile misrepresentation aren't accusations of "bad faith". This is boring, frankly. (Sarah777 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Taramoon, at least, had the courtesy to apologise for the comments preceding ("Okay, I withdraw that, per below. Didn't mean to aim it at anyone in particulsr. Taramoon 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)"). --sony-youthpléigh 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, the other person must always do the apologising? (Sarah777 01:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]


What ArbCom is

It's the last, and most expansive step of WP:DR. If you guys want, I will open a case on Request for Arbitration.. but it takes a while to run, IF it's accepted (they might say that it's a content dispute, etcetera. I will talk to SWATJester about either doing a private mediation, or opening an ArbCom dispute. SirFozzie 12:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shame, because it isn't a dispute at all. It's dressed up as one by Users Sarah777 and Domer48, but the actual underlying issue is their repeated incivility and harassment. In fact, we can even see a direct example of that above. Sarah777 in particular has a long history of systematically distorting the various attempts of many different editors to get her to restrain her tone. I do realise that it is wearisome to go back and analyse all this, but I think SirFozzie if you were willing to spend some time on it, you would quickly see that very many times Sony-youth and others including myself have tried to ask for evidence, make NPOV alterations and challenged on issues, tried to remain calm and asked for incivility to desist, only to have it distorted, confused and deliberately thrown in our faces. At times when Admins have been involved, these users have either played dumb or acted hurt and innocent. Yet you can quite clearly see how Sarah777 operates above. This shouldn't have to go to Arbcom; as in my complaint yesterday, it should be dealt with as clear-cut cases of breaches of WP rules. The fact that it isn't effectively gives these users a green light to go on with the abusive behaviour, which we see above. I think they both will eventually be blocked but leaving casualties and disappointed editors along the way. MarkThomas 12:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abusive beaviour is a two way street, as the diffs Domer posted show. SirFozzie 12:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean in the original post on Talk:Great Irish Famine that I complained about? I've just been back and reviewed that. Which of my comments in his diff are abusive? I mean, my comments, not his heavily distorted interpretation of them. MarkThomas 13:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So everyone is cool with me being accused of vile misrepresentation way back in February? Could I just point out that that is way worse than some of the "incivility" I'm accused in the RfC by Sony and Mark? And as I said, there is much more where that came from; but I couldn't be bothered looking for it. At least not yet. (Sarah777 20:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

ArbCom

Since it looks like with regards to the ongoing issue, nothing will be solved until ArbCom gets involved, I have created an ArbCom case about the ongoing issues with Great Irish Famine and its editors. I will repeat what I said to Sarah, that I agree with a great many points that you made, but I STRONGLY urge you to be CIVIL during the ArbCom case. SirFozzie 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I think you broke the formatting (if you look at the RfA page it looks like it split off your quote into a new subsection). Secondly, try to keep it clear and concise. We're not arguing the case right now, we're telling ArbCom why they need to take the case. Definitely keep it below 500 words, try to use as few as possible, Focus on the harassment you feel you're getting from MarkThomas for example. I'm kinda stuck at the moment (work sucks ;) but I'll try to poke my head in from time to time. SirFozzie 17:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Had a free moment and fixed it for you. SirFozzie 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Hey Domer, I'm about to leave work for the day, but here's some suggestions on harmonious editing: (this was an answer to a question on my Request for Admin

1) Get an outside opinion to look at your work. Sometimes, you cannot see the forest for the trees, and the tendency to dig your heels in can become overwhelming. A second set of eyes and a friendly warning is always good to say "Maybe you're a little off base there".. and pull you back to safer ground.

2) Avoid the fence of 3RR. When it comes to true edit conflicts and not just reverting a banned user or outright vandalism, if you're reverting more than once, you better have taken it to the talk page.

3) "It has to be right, but it doesn't has to be right Right NOW." Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, so taking the time to discuss any changes you want to make and a willingness to LISTEN to other viewpoints will save you so much grief.

4) Having a sense of humor about things can reduce your stress level considerably. If you can't laugh, because you're so angry over an edit war? It's time to stand up, get away from the computer for a bit, and de-stress.

Also remember, 3RR is an absolute limit, not an entitlement. You CAN be blocked for doing less than 3RR a day, if it's determined that you're edit warring. You've done good by asking me, I'll take a look at it when I have some free time (hopefully tonight) - Sir Fozzie

I see what happened on the NI talkpage and I can see why you are steaming; I've reported it to SirF; let's leave it with him awhile. Excellent advice on 3RR (same as mine!!) DON'T - even if all around you seem to be doing it! Best regards - from someone who carries the scars of leaping before looking! (Sarah777 22:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm working on what you and Sarah brought up.. however, as the saying goes, the best laid plans of mice and man, gang aft agley... Work is absolutely crazy. Just some suggestions, real quick, for the RfArb, take a look at what I put in the evidence section. Be concise, be factual, and link diffs for any evidence. SirFozzie 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Mistake, probably. I'm the one who brought the case. *shrugs* Go ahead, but remember.. CONCISE and FACTUAL. The problem with that archive is it's all over the place. Restrict it to the editors in the ArbCom case in general (unless you have something really over the top elsewhere). But make sure that you back up everything you say in that section. SirFozzie 21:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can use stuff outside the article itself, remember it's viewing user conduct, not just on the article talk page. I think I've already used those diffs, look at the evidence page.. but I think if you describe (again, BRIEFLY) what was going on and illustrate bad conduct. Also, there may be things you could have done better. Admit them, it looks better than having your opponents use it against you... SirFozzie 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just pinging you to read this section above. Be honest, be factual and be brief. State that you tried to assume good faith and work with other users and could not, and this is because "X" happened (and link diffs again) SirFozzie 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure on it, but as long as the source URL was good at one point (and qualified as a RS), I think it could stay in the article. I'd check over with WP:RS and read up to see what should happen in this situation. BTW... If you need me for the next few days, it might be best to contact me via email. I've come down with some kind of bug, and will be editing VERY sporadically. SirFozzie 18:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 22:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on SirFozzie's page that you had not been given notice that this case had been opened today. This was a completely inadvertent oversight by me, for which I apologize. Newyorkbrad 22:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The famine book

No, mate, I haven't questioned the notability of the book. I think you may be misinterpreting a previous comment of mine where I said that Toibin and Ferriter's book, The Irish Famine was by no means the definitive scholarly account of the Famine. As mentioned several times previously, this is a formatting tweak that is fully supported by our manual of style. Apologies, but I don't feel as though I have to justify my good faith article creations to you, mate. While I've been away for all of the deletion discussions, I am quite confident that the article satisfies all applicable notability guidelines and policies. Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Free_the_POW's_Mural_Belfast.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Free_the_POW's_Mural_Belfast.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I notice you are edit-warring on Mairéad Farrell. "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." (from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule)

Please stop and discuss in talk towards reaching a compromise. Thanks. --John 19:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theres more than him at it - infact I would say that this edit is pure provakation. But sure ignore that eh.--Vintagekits 19:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provocation it may be but it has drawn me into the argument via my watching this page! (To keep an eye on Domer - in case he goes on one of his 3RR binges!!) (Sarah777 02:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Duke of Hamilton

Like what? Did you actually look at what you're retagging? Brendandh 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chris Buttigieg 11:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chris Buttigieg 11:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't

I notice you said: "Now I’m requesting that you have a none biased admin review this article, as your contrabuting to it is untenable." I think you misunderstand the role of an admin here. I have the absolute right to edit any article I feel like here. If I ever do any admin actions (ie blocking or deletion) that you are unhappy with, at that point you may complain about me. As I have not done so, I don't think your complaint has any merit. I have already pointed out to you where you can go to obtain the views of other admins; WP:ANI is another resource you may use if you feel the need. Finally I did reply to the message you left me; I'll repeat the part of my answer which related to your behaviour as you seem to have missed it:

"There was nothing wrong with removing the category, and your use of a boilerplate vandalism warning with an established user was unwise. More to the point that was definitely not vandalism. Neither of you has behaved well. It would be better to try to listen to one another's points of view and try to compromise."

I hope that clarifies things for you. --John 15:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you obviously still don't get it. First of all it is inappropriate to take this conversation about your behaviour to article talk. Secondly, your edit summary is decidedly uncivil. I shall try to state simply and clearly what I will and won't do:
I will ensure that behaviour on these articles improves, including yours, such that it is conducive to civil discussion. If you are unable to do this, I will ensure that you receive a break from editing.
I will not necessarily act as you seem to wish me to. In particular, as an involved party in the discussion, I will certainly not take any administrative action in relation to it. Nonetheless I think you should be careful with the way you speak to people in this sometimes-controversial area of Wikipedia.
Giving vandalism warnings to people with whom you are engaged in a content dispute is a mistake. Please do not do it again. Thanks. --John 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Careful Domer - Sticking tags on Admin talkpages is slightly unwise! Please try and keep calm. (Sarah777 20:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sarah your right of course, I should know better. Thanks for the advice. Kind Regards--Domer48 20:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Great Irish Famine

I request that you stop editing that article for now. The very last thing you want to do with an active ArbCom case is get stuck in an edit war over that article. I may request that the article get protected during this.. because obviously, as a party to the ArbCom case, I am not supposed to do such things. SirFozzie 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought it up already, on the Workshop page. Again, don't get stuck in to an edit war here. It makes the other side look worse. SirFozzie 17:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, you did some great research on the famine but you seem to have gone into hyper-drive. Can you not see that maybe there is a bit of niggling or provocation going on? They know that ArbCom are watching all this and at the moment you're like a wee bull in a chinashop!(Sarah777 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sarah I hear what your saying, but these POV Bandits who contribute nothing but opinion, and can produce no referenced material to back up their opinions are intolerable. The hoops I have to jump through on articles is a joke. And when you look at the links on some of the articles THAT I PUT IN, and the amount of referencing on those articles! their having a laugh. Look at this [30] no references, and this [31], what about this one [32], or this [33]. That’s just on this article. I put a needs citation tag on one such article, Jesus I thought they were having a break down. This assume good faith thing, ye right! I look at what is happening here and I’ll tell you what I assume? Thanks for the thought, Kind Regards --Domer48 21:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC) PS just finished this post and look at this [34] and thats an Admin![reply]
The only safe way to go here is to gather the evidence of all unreasonable claims, double-standards etc. Remember, it is to get a ruling on the harassment you are getting that SirFozzie has started the Arb.com. It is a slow process. Remember, patience is strength! (Sarah777 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Core policy

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (from Wikipedia:Verifiability). Hope this helps you. --John 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops John again! YOU are the Admin complained about above at [6]. But I do think "Unfortunately for your POV-pushing endeavours" is a bit overly aggressive (and not just because I share Domer's pov!) But he has unearthed some excellent horses!(Sarah777 22:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If I came out with something like that I would be blocked - no doubt about it. Ironically it would be John that would probably block me to.--Vintagekits 22:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the really important question here is how did he manage to snag the name "JOHN"? It must have been the most sought-after handle on Wiki. I had to go to 777 to get a handle with me name on it! (Sarah777 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You asked "Since you have told me the core principle for adding and restoring material, what about removing material where is the onus? Would that be the same onus on the editor wishing to remove something to show that it is justified. For example removing POW cat's am I right in asking show us a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs".
No, as I say, it doesn't work like that. Check out the policy I linked to at the top of the section and you'll see exactly what I mean. --John 00:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to Bobby Sands

Please don't revert my edits, me edits are in line with WP:CAT, WP:NPOV and WP:POV, yours are not. Calling members of the IRA Prisoners of war is deeply offensive. Here's a lesson in history for you, Airey Neave was captured by the Nazis, he escaped twice and was caught and tortured by the Gestapo, he died 35 years later aged 63 when the IRA blew him up. In short, Airey Neave was a POW, those who put a bomb under his car were terrorist. --Hera1187 09:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airey Neave wasn't killed by the IRA. Scalpfarmer 09:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ye I know? New one on me.--Domer48 09:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So much for the history teacher then! Scalpfarmer 10:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That rivers of blood, is it not?--Domer48 10:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no I'm thinking of Enoch Powell! My mistake D-. --Domer48 11:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


POW. Your tone is objectionable but thank you for the explanation.--MJB 19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)

Domer. I appreciate the good work you have done in finding the SCS source and its relation to POW status. I respect its validity and would support its use a source to justify the adding of the POW cat to SCS prisoners.

However, please note that Michael Gaughan was not a SCS prisoner and therefore your source is inconsequential. You have twice added unsourced content that has been removed. I would ask you to read WP:V#Burden of evidence which explains why it is appropriate to remove unsourced content. Once again, I ask you to provide a reference for Gaughan as a POW or remove the content again yourself. Continuing to add unsourced content after it has been challanged is a violation of policy. Thank you. Rockpocket 20:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Great Irish Famine

I didn't actually do any of the factual stuff – I just took the section as it was previously and rearranged the paragraphs so that it read a bit better. All the unsourced stuff was there previously. I might go back and take a look at it if I have a chance, but I'm unlikely to have any real free time in the near future.

Jean McConville

He has breached 3RR on that - go ahead and report him, I would but I'm off to bed.--Vintagekits 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I am not sure quite what was happening on my page, but it seems to have stopped thanks to you. Brixton Busters 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon. Is there anyone I can complain to about this non-stop harassment? Brixton Busters 14:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PoW status for IRA Convicts?

Your "reliable neutral source" only uses the term Prisoners of War in quote marks AND, in the passage to which you link, refers only to those interned for 7 days or less. I'm not convinced it's evidence for listing any IRA prisoners as PoWs, but certainly it isn't evidence for all of them.

The army document very rarely refers to War in the context of the NI Troubles (as distinct from the Cold War or World Wars). When it does it tends to be of the form The events of 1969 could easily have turned into open civil war, but did not etc. What exactly were you trying to prove with this one? beano 09:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request

As a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation regarding articles about Ireland, Northern Ireland and its people and groups 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.

This would either supplant the ArbCom case, depending on how things turn out, or work along side on it. It's a good opportunity to try to get everything out and get focused on writing an encyclopedia SirFozzie 14:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Roger Casement Grave Glasnevin.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Roger Casement.JPG. The copy called Image:Roger Casement.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Civil_Order_poster_1981.JPG

I have tagged Image:Civil_Order_poster_1981.JPG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rlest 12:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making repeated false allegations against me

Please stop making false allegations against me, as you have done in a number of places, most recently on the talk page of Great Irish Famine. I have emailed several admins who I know to be impartial and asked them to examine your conduct in detail - you have been warned. Thanks. MarkThomas 12:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please be aware of the WP:3RR on Great Irish Famine. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel Bastun (as do I) that he has already broken as per WP:3RR the spirit of the rule? If so, you may wish to complain. Certainly Domer48 should also not be in my opinion performing any further edits on Great Irish Famine given that there is currently an Arbcom on it. MarkThomas 13:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think taking a complaint further would be counterproductive at this point. I'd recommend no further edits by you, Mark, or Domer, or anyone involved in the ArbCom. Everyone probably needs to chill a bit and go edit something else. :-) Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that GoldHeart has reverted it to the Domer48 version just now though. What we have here is a concerted activity. All a bit sad really. MarkThomas 13:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but why let obviously one-purpose accounts call the tune on this topic. Been busy, and actually I'm a bit lost to the argument about the page. Could someone elucidate, it would help, thanks. GH 15:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise :-) But in brief - the page was referred to Arbcom. Editing died down. A SPA appeared a couple of days ago and reverted to Domer's version (with a spurious edit summary). I drew attention to this on the talk page (without reverting) and asked an admin to look at it. An edit war ensued. Another apparent SPA turned up today, reverting to Mark's version. (This is the one you reverted). Page protection has been requested. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Helps, a weeny bit:) GH 16:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dormer48. Still puzzles me to what's going on. Haven't been with it all the was since the beginnings. Will have a closer look. GH 17:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows what the argument's over. It all blew up on me because I commented out a single quote. Now I'm to be "repremanded" because I want a checkuser on who these SPAs are. --sony-youthpléigh 17:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the whole Genesis seems pretty innocuous to me, and has grown a life of its own, with a few over-the-water editors getting up to their necks to boot. Generally the Irish history articles are very much to the point , and are very much npov. Which is much more than I can say for some other quarters, whose editors should be looking at their own "stuff" first. GH 18:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk of WP:OWNership of articles simply propogates the problem here. The whole "us and them" angle is counter-productive to an ongoing collaborative effort. Rockpocket 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, that's my point. And that's the way I've always operated. GH 18:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dormer48, I have noticed some of that all right, I remember that. When these issues get protracted, that's where I lose the plot. Sometimes when it goes to talk, some of the editors get involved in equivocation and "red herring syndrome", and it just goes on. Keep the referenced and notes on the talk page, it would be a good benchmark to go back to. GH 18:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They say they want balance, and that I’m pushing a POV, surly the way to stop me in my tracks is to provide references which counteract what I’m saying? But they will not, no its much easer to call me names. You reverted the article, did you see the amount of referenced information I put in there. Did you see the citation tags I added? And what do they go for, the referenced stuff? Gold, honestly, any Ideas? --Domer48 18:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, it would be helpful if you stated who "they" are so that those you are accusing can respond and resolve the matter. Am I one of "them"? --sony-youthpléigh 20:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for checkuser

Domer, you're getting taking this the wrong way. 1. I moved you comments to the talk page because they are not a request for checkuser but talk about the request. 2. I don't have no ill intent with the request - both you and I know it will show that Pappin76 is not you, I just want to know who it is. 3. I think Marks requests is without foundation, but so what if he does ask for it - again, you and I know it will show that Sarah is not you!

Finally, please stop posting comments such as "This is all part of a campaign of Harassment" in response to my post. I am not harassing you. Why on earth would I harass you? --sony-youthpléigh 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

conscientious editors

Have you had any problems with me?Aatomic1 21:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did I know that was going to happen [35]--Domer48 21:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham pub bombings

Because my comments have been removed does not mean I have not made them.

From WP:NOT Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.

I don’t know any of them; they are not my relatives and they are not the subject of encyclopedia articles. I ain’t honouring them. An unbiased editor would also remove my edits on Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and Welsh Guards. Aatomic1 11:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham pub bombings

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Birmingham pub bombings. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

Kind regards,
Anthøny (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:AGK#Birmingham bombing block

I've replied to your post (link, above) at my talk page; your continued output there is requested ~ Anthøny (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I warned you, Domer, that another comment like the one I saw before, and you would be blocked. I'm afraid that I have been forced to block you for 24 hours for the uncivil comments you made on my talk page. If you wish to contest it, you can place {{unblock}} on your talk page with the reason you should be unblocked. I try to be a patient man, you have exhausted mine. SirFozzie 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No your alright I’ll sit out the block! First of my posts you’ve responded to!
How was the block Domer, relaxing? MarkThomas 13:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't respond to this Domer, Mark has earned a 24 hour block of his very own for this and other comments. SirFozzie 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mark's comment was goading and highly inflammatory. I have just issued him with his final warning. - Alison ☺ 15:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your post

Hello; thank you for your post on my Talk page. It seems more for Rockpocket's benefit than mine.

I have no objection to your posting on my Talk page, but please could you reformat your post, indenting and italicising it, and making sure that the links (including signature links) are carried over. I'd be grateful if you could also please add a link to the original discussion.

You might also like to have a look at this post of mine here, and I hope that you might agree to it as a way forward.--Major Bonkers (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and thank you for tidying up your post. You'll see that I've marked the issue as 'resolved'; I've made my point, and I don't think that there's much to be gained by raking over past problems. If people are stupid enough to try to game the system, that's a matter for them: as far as I am concerned, they are wasting time - theirs and ours - on inconsequential arguments that have no applicability in real life. See also here.
Please can I draw your attention to the proposal that I have made on Rockpocket's Talk page, here. If you want to add any refinements, be my guest. I'd dearly like someone from the Irish nationalist 'side' to lead and support a move to end this childish name-calling which is a huge and wasteful disruption of our time and energy.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Poster_Turf_Lodge.JPG

I have tagged Image:Poster_Turf_Lodge.JPG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Rationale for the image. I'm in the process of obtaining more. --Domer48 13:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Emma_Groves.JPG

I have tagged Image:Emma_Groves.JPG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Rationale for the image. I'm in the process of obtaining more. --Domer48 13:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sons Of Eein Derek Warfield.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sons Of Eein Derek Warfield.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Reverting rather than reading what you are reverting

"an middle class family"

Anything look wrong there? Someone had corrected it and you restored the error. I invite you to correct it. Please be more careful and actually read the article history. --John 23:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it. Brixton Busters 23:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, forests and trees I'm afraid. --Domer48 08:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:1916 commemorative plague.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 13:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Bobby Sands

I fear discussion with someone who compares Christ & Sands will not be possible. If it means that much to you, leave it. Many suffragettes would also fit in the category "Criminals that committed suicide"; it is a fact not a judgment. Finally, Christ was killed. A martyr but not a suicide. Otherwise it would be a little difficult to retain suicide as a mortal sin.--MJB 14:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christ’s death was deliberate, His death, in fact was predetermined, as was His awareness of it. --Domer48 14:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use rationale for Image:Mairéad Farrell.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mairéad Farrell.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 19:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radios and detonators

I really don't see your point in changing from radio to 'detonating device' its sloppy wording and if anything using the word radio is more favourable to the Irish visitors case as the security services justification for shooting was that they claimed to have believed they carried the means to remotely set off a bomb.

In order for that there needs to be explosive, a detonating device, a radio receiver and a transmitter. Only the latter would be carried by one of the team.

In practice there was no radio, and the detonating device was with the semtex and timers in Spain. However, there is no suggestion anywhere that the security services thought they were carrying explosives. This was the PIRA, not a suicide brigade.

--Gibnews 19:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warbox

No thanks. I think I'll keep it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.213.101 (talk • contribs)

And it will be removed again. It is entirely inaccurate and PoV. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"talented"

Its sourced in the Tirghra reference.--Vintagekits 10:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, how would he have got on the county team if he was'ent talented. Its just play acting. --Domer48 11:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer48

You are fond of telling editors to look at the talk page while you are reverting, however you fail to realise that all questions that have been asked of me are answered. I am still waiting on your reply. Oh and that 'reference' is incomplete. I have asked for the full paragraph to be published however as of yet that has been avoided. If it isn't in the next few days, I will delete that reference citing the reason inaccuracy. (btw I see the WP:IRA brigade lost one of its members yesterday, I hope that won't affect your methods of reverting in numbers, its quite good fun actually trying to get answers out of some people) Regards Conypiece 12:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Poison

Please specify what poisonous people I am supposed to mix with [36]. I look forward to you reply. Giano 18:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer was referring to the comment I had made that "any[one] outside the poisonous atmosphere Vk moved in will be amazed his behaviour was tolerated this long." He was referring to himself as being in the atmosphere, and I presume, used it to make a point that he feels the comment was aimed at him.
The meaning of that comment was to indicate that the baseline behaviour of the protangonists in the running battles between some British and Irish editors is terrible. Because it has been going on so long, and the divisions run so deep, that behaviour that would not be tolerated elsewhere in the project is pretty much the norm. This is the "poisonous atmosphere" I referred to, and it was not meant to reflect on any single editor, or even any "side", just the whole damn situation. Rockpocket 18:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am foreighn, I notta understand these double negatives and "" thingies! Giano 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IRA

Hello Domer. I'm happy to confirm that the WP:IRA has nothing to do with you. What actually happened was Erin Go Bragh (talk · contribs) created a IRA Wikiproject and created WP:IRA as a shortcut. This was merged with the Irish republicanism wikiproject, and the shortcut was merged too. I'm assuming this was done in good faith, but I don't this its a smart idea to use that link for the republicanism project (for what I hope are obvious reasons). Anyway, I have removed the link from the project page, and nominated it for deletion (see here) if you wish to comment. Rockpocket 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Irish Republican Army

Please stop removing the fact they are a terrorist organisation, it is not my POV or Weasel Words, it is a fact that has been defined by other organisations, and they are listed in List of designated terrorist organizations. Danielnez1 12:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But not in the 26 counties! --Domer48 19:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong! BastunBaStun not BaTsun 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this had anything to do with ye, make your point with ref's--Domer48 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Won't be here for long, but I'll do the odd bit while I'm waiting to see if anything happens with the current situation. One Night In Hackney303 14:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case

User:SqueakBox has filed Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party. Kittybrewster (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry West

Even though you seem to be trying your hardest to look after padraig, you have to remember past discussions, see Template Talk:1981 Hunger Strike. Conypiece 22:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Escape

There you go. Make sure you keep an eye on it when I'm gone too please. One Night In Hackney303 22:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles opened

Hello. The above named arbitration case, in which you were named as a party, has opened. Please submit your evidence directly on the case page, or, if needed, submit it via email to an arbitrator or an arbitration clerk.

For the Arbitration clerk committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not list someone else on an open arbitration case unless you have their approval. Subsequent listing on open arbitration case is generally restricted to Arbitrators. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

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. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way

Domer, it takes two to tango (or in this case, two to edit war). I agree with you that it has to be right (for whatever value right is.), but it doesn't have to be right right this instant. If you look at the arbcom case, I've posted the latest war as evidence. If you can post evidence there just as easily as I can.

Oh.. I meant it about not edit warring, btw. My patience is utterly gone with all of this right now, and I WILL block anybody who edit wars and/or gets incivil. Ok? SirFozzie 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of IRAs

You removed an edit relating to the existence of the IRAO [37]. If I understand your reasoning correctly (and I accept that I may not) you considered that one of the two references was POV. What is your take on the second reference Dáil Éireann - Volume 6 - 11 March, 1924? Aatomic1 01:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your question on the Article page. --Domer48 10:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Irish Roman Catholic

Whether being Roman Catholic had an influence on their notability or not, they are still Roman Catholics and belong in that category. The same applies to Irish Anglicans, Presbyterians, etc. Otherwise delete the categories all together... -RiverHockey 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally I find it insulting that one can only be deemed Roman Catholic if it effected their notability. The religous categories should either be applied to all or scrapped totally. Maybe change the category to Irish Roman Catholics whose religion effected their notability. Ha. -RiverHockey 19:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up

Domer, you told me to always be up front and honest with you. I am breaking a Wiki-Health Break for just that purpose. I notice a new account has shown up on Orange Institution and while there's nothing I can do to prove it, it seems rather interesting that they've picked up a certain viewpoint. I've had people from both sides say, yes, it's suspicious. I'm not going to say Yes or No, to the suspicions, but if the account DOES happen to be related to anyone in the current conflict (meat OR Sock), it would be the worst possible thing that you could do in this whole thing. Especially since there is a motion in the ArbCom case to checkuser everybody. Do you understand me? SirFozzie 18:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing your attention to...

Talk:Séamus McElwaine, the sooner this Rosslea/Roslea business is solved the better. I would appreciate to hear your comments for this is a perfect opputunity to settle this. Conypiece 21:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Ros Liath the Irish version talk about silly arguments. I have googled both names and came up with the same place surely a compromise can be had on this. BigDunc 21:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup a compromise could be found if it were needed, however the fact is Rosslea is used by the vast majority of people. There have been many sources discussed and the final result was Rosslea by nearly all of them. And yes; it is a silly arguement, it is a spelling mistake that simply needs corrected. Conypiece 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about Fermanagh Council using it. BigDunc 21:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what 99 other sources that don't use it. That has already been discussed on the talk page. Please use it to comment on the issue, domers talk page is no place to have this discussion. Conypiece 21:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know appologies just reading it there now. BigDunc 21:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an Idea, why don't you take this discussion of my talk page and have it on the Article discussion page. And Conypiece I'd rather you did'ent post on my talk page if thats ok. All you want to do is edit war and create disruption, [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Now I've asked nicley. --Domer48 21:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this to your attention for you were one of the editors who reverted without discussion. I am telling you that there is a discussion happening on that page in regards to the name. If you care about the name so much to be able to revert it then you should be able to back up your arguement. Understand? Oh and before you go digging for dirt on me; read my talk page and you will see that, that editor and I came to an agreement. Please keep up. Conypiece 21:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you discussed your changes before you reverted them? Don't think so! Now respond if you must, but after that, stay of my talk page! Use article talk pages, that is use not abuse. --Domer48 21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an unreasonalbe edit to begin with, the original editor later confirmed that himself. Now I hope you're away making that list of 13 pages I've had an edit war on today. Conypiece 21:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End of discussion. No more posts on this talk page. --Domer48 21:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

You can go to this page, and add your name ===Domer48=== then your comment, please add something on WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Dreamy \*/!$! 01:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A favor to ask of you

Or a couple favors, really. If you read User:Alison's page, you will read that Gold heart has decided to harass her, both on and off Wikipedia. Let her know she has your support.. if you can, let others know as well. Alison didn't and doesn't deserve the treatment she's getting. SirFozzie 20:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Anyone can put forward anything they consider relevant. They are themselves liable to be judged on that too, however. You can present counter evidence in your own section etc if you think it appropriate. Tyrenius 14:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Roman Catholics

So one can be categorised as a Roman Catholic politician, or American Roman Catholic, but not Irish Roman Catholic? By the way my editing is not disruptive, but sockpuppeting is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RiverHockey (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me an Orangeman? The reply to your question is no. If your religion dose not have anything to do with your notability, the cat should not be applied. You know that, and keep doing it. Thats disruptive. --Domer48 15:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(conflict) Domer, had you left on my watchlist from long ago so I spotted this. A little digging see what it was about brought up [this little charm] (see the edit summary). Ah ... flash back to the days when you called me a revionist. Had to chuckle! --sony-youthpléigh 15:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me an Orangeman. They should check my edit history. --Domer48 15:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the Fenian quotes on your user page could tip someone off? --sony-youthpléigh 15:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They just want to make a point. Will not rise to the bait. Claims I BigDunc and Breen32, I told them to request a checkuser, Ah ... flash back to the days. Take care. --Domer48 15:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, yes, back in the day. :) --sony-youthpléigh 15:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bobby sands

personally i class him as a terrorist, but my personal feelings are not relevant when it comes to wikipedia, just as terrorist offends some, volunteer offends others, and i dont see how my last edit could be considered to be anything other than NPOV. Sennen goroshi 18:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last page

Please go here when you are finished putting your full information here, and in the first link, put only 5-7 sentences. I would like it concise. Dreamy \*/!$! 21:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandal

Yes, please give another 4th level warning. The blocking guidelines for anonymous IPs are that there must have been a level 3 or 4 warning within the past 24 hours, and mine is 4 days old. Thanks, NawlinWiki 16:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Yes, after the concise answers we shall discuss it, to try to come to a compromise. Dreamy \*/!$! 19:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to take part in...

This? Your reply will be useful (for other editors) if nothing else... Conypiece 20:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation 3

What do you mean BB has left due to a broken computer? Who is BB? Of course it's not a vote. Dreamy \*/!$! 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brixton Buster. I seen the vote box at the top of the page? --Domer48 20:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is not a vote box per se. It is merely for me to get my info. We will of course be having the discussion at length, these pages are merely for getting your thoughts down, for everyone to see. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland tm 12:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Orange Institution content disputes

Hi, to try to resolve the impasse I have suggested an approach which I hope that editors might find useful to help to resolve the content disputes over the article Orange Institution: see Talk:Orange Institution#Moving_on.2C_starting_discussion. I am not a mediator, let alone a one-woman arbcom, so this is only a suggestion, and it may be that editors can find a more effective approach. However, I'm keen to see some progress towards settling those disputes, so I would be grateful if you could read that suggestion and see if it helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your msg today: see my reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Orange_Institution_editprotected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Kirkpatrick

You will note I am expanding the list, I am particularly interested in the damage a Supergrass (informer) can do to a just cause. Aatomic1 13:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could the number of people arrested no be enough! What does the list actually do? --Domer48 14:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read everything

Please read and respond to everything in the discussion. You will see that the guidance you want to add does not apply to the category. 75.32.36.79 22:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing comments

I didn't mean to. All I did was insert my comment within yours, to make it clear to what I responding. Many people seem to do that all the time on talk pages. If you don't like it, well, I apologise. No offence meant. Cheers, Neale Monks 18:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wind That Shakes the Barley music

What do you mean musically by "revised"? Is Pearse the performer or the composer? Did he reinterpret the song? Or did he add new lyrics or other new musical content to the composition itself? It's unclear as written. Thanks. --Melty girl 20:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. It looks like Pearse only added lyrics, right? No music, correct? In that case, it's not really correct to say that he either "reinvented" it or "revised" it, since he didn't touch the music, and he didn't remove or rewrite the existing lyrics. It seems more correct to say that he "added verses". But I think the real problem here is that in The Wind That Shakes the Barley, there just isn't enough information about the song to help readers make sense of the clause about Pearse if they don't already know the whole story. "Amongst the songs on the film's soundtrack is 'Oró Sé do Bheatha 'Bhaile', a song revised by Padraig Pearse," is very vague. It only raises questions. Why should I care about this particular song? Who is Pearse? Who wrote it originally? I think it needs to explain in full what the significance and origin of the song is. --Melty girl 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Irish Genocide

Shouldn't that be "relatively speaking"? One Night In Hackney303 08:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Pearse

Hello there Domer48. You appear to have totally deleted or reverted my recent edit to enhance Padraig's story with material I feel should be included in order to have a complete understanding of his person, his political standpoint and the situation at the time. All of course negotiable and perhaps leading to a more interesting discussion than on his private life. I do admit I should have perhaps edited a little at a time rather than so much all at once which on this sacred gound can naturally trigger an over-reaction revert ?. I see you say something about "Copy Violation". Yes, I did quote Dudley word for word so as to avoid being accused of POV. I have no bother in finding similar non-copied alternate wording. Is this where I went wrong ?? Thanks for your advice. Greetings Osioni 18:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles closed

The above named Arbitration case has closed. The Arbitration Committee decided that [a]ny user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The Committee also decided to uplift Vintagekits' indefinite block at the same time.

The full decision can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel 08:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of YI books on Great Irish Famine

Hi there--just wanted to let you know I've removed this list again. In addition to already being in place at Young Ireland (how many places does it need to exist, really?), there's already a section for further reading. An article about an historical topic doesn't require an exhaustive list of all its primary sources; consider how quickly that would get out of hand. I'm not suggesting the YI sources themselves are somehow inappropriate (quite the opposite), but we should use them as sources to improve the article text. Dppowell 12:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message; I replied on the article talk page. Dppowell 13:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant parliament for protestant people

It does make sense that he would wait 3 years to make that statement, if you read the context to his comments. I referenced it to the NIHOC Hansard somewhere, you can find it here. He was responding to a very specific taunt.Traditional unionist 11:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation 4

You can go to this page, and talk about it. Dreamy § 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to your question there. Dreamy § 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Meehan

Might be best if you keep an eye on this too under the circumstances? One Night In Hackney303 15:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's on watchlist. --Domer48 15:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Domer48 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not acceptable and will not be accepted. --Domer48 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance

Ignorance is the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. In this matter you are uninformed and there was no personal attack. Aatomic1 18:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote this in the mediation section

Birmingham pub bombings is nowhere near featured article status, so the argument that the lack of a memorial to dead Brummies is somehow preventing it being a featured article is specious.Aatomic1 20:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Domer has included Marylin Nash, 22 from Pelsall and Stephen Whalley, 21 from Bloxwich as dead Brummies." Did I say this? No! --Domer48 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish names

Domer48, don't you get it? Names are names. They are facts. They are not just words, like prose or poetry, that can be freely translated. I don't know what you know about the Irish language, but for the vast majority of Anglicised surnames, there are a number of possible Irish-language originals. The page you are using[43] is not an authoritative source for determining someone's name in Irish. Although I use my Irish surname (it's on all my official documents and has been for most of my life), I've looked up my own English-language name and the "translation" is absolute codswollop in that it completely defies the laws of Irish grammar. Other names I've checked are similarly arbitrary. I know people by the name of Jennings who under no circumstances would use "Mac Sheoinín" as they consider it offensive.

This page is clearly serves the requirements of the GAA that Irish "versions" of players' (again, from my experience, usually conjured up without any consultation with the players themselves) names be submitted to the match officials before a game, but does not satisfy the requirements of an encyclopaedia. What you provide are subjective renderings of what can only be objective facts. This GAA list provides no guarantee that the "translations" it provides are actually the used surnames of the people concerned.

This is cúpla focailism at its worst and it does nothing at all for the Irish language and less for the articles concerned. Morevoer, it's clear that the people who posted up these "names" in the first place have non-existent or at least very limited understanding of it and I suspect you're little different in that regard. Taking out your frustration at not being able to speak Irish on Wikipedia is pathetic. An bhfuil aon Gaeilge agatsa ar cor ar bith? Níl gléas bolscaireachta ach teanga beatha í!--Damac 11:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glacaim leis an bpoinnte a rinne tú cé nach naontaím leath.Taím ar bheagán gaeilge ach tá suim agam sa teanga.Teanga beo cinnte!! "Cupla Focailism at its worst" does not mean anything and is a shallow term for anybody who knows more about the irish language to use about somebody of a lesser degree of irish,cúpla focailism should be encouraged and in saying that i commend domer48 for his limited but cúpla focail none the less,would it not be better damac for somebody like you to encourage the use of our native language,assuming domer48 is a full blooded irish person,well then he has every right to cúpla focail and aspire to inhance his knowledge of the "living language" as you put it,not for propaganda use as you state but for practical conversation or would that burst your "living language bubble". Damac try not discourage with words like pathetic,this living language belongs to us all,whatever your level,seems like your caught up on the laws of irish grammer instead of practical promotion of the language,something that would credit your POV with class instead of bitterness..Breen32 (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Breen32 (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you forgotten the IMOS that you so willingly quoted during the week.[44] Where is the evidence in your recent spate of edits that these names were used by the subjects of the articles?--Damac 12:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said the names were not sourced. I have provided a source. You are saying the source is not relilable, provide a reference for this, otherwise it's just comment and opinion. I'm willing to be helpful, read my contrabutions on the discussion page and your talk page, please assume good faith. --Domer48 12:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Breen32 (talk) how's the form. Don't worry about those comments. You only have to read their attempt to realise what your dealing with. Your use of native Irish is much more appealing and much nicer on the ear. Take care. --Domer48 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why

do you think so? - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Domer48 (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry

You seem to be confusing removing POV with adding a different POV. Please point to one POV statement I have inserted into the article. I have pointed to several of yours. -R. fiend (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, name one piece of POV, OR, or personal opinion I have inserted into the article. -R. fiend (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed information which was clearly in quotation marks. You have no idea of the author you dismissed, and you are edit waring to make a point. --Domer48 (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is removing biased information adding POV? And I am familiar with Golway, I've even read one of his books. That's irrelevant. And I'm not edit warring to make a point, I'm trying to write a neutral article. Since you can't point to one POV statement I've inserted into the article, despite several requests, I think we can dismiss your accusations outright. -R. fiend (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is done, I will report your conduct on the admin's notice board. Which includes edit warring and blocking an article to make a point. --Domer48 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Kevin Barry.

Please note that edit warring is disruptive and can lead to preventative blocks. Regards, Mercury 19:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham pub bombings

Domer, I note that you have begun edit-warring on the above article. May I point you to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles and indicate that you may be placed on probation under the provisions of said ArbCom ruling? Thanks - Alison ❤ 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Alison, will take your advice. The article is currently the subject of Mediation, as this editor is aware. The mediator has themselves had to revert this list twice, pointing out that it is the subject of mediation. If it is the case that only the mediator is to revert, I will leave it to them. Thanks again, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Society of the United Irishmen

Cheers mate, I've fixed the image. All the best! Martin (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem. --Domer48 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits ip 81.86.253.176

Hello Domer48, thank you for suggesting I contact you. I wish to bring up two matters - firstly, the edits on the troubles. As I stated before, all other things being equal, it should be reported as an accidental killing, rather than (as the language would suggest) premeditated. Especially given the details of the killing - a high calibre machine gun round that travelled through a wall. Quite clearly accidental. Once I get round to registering I will cite a reference for this. At the very least I would suggest a rewording that seems more objective.

Secondly, the edit on the largest sizes of empires. You seem to have sent me a message which would indicate I have added material without citing sources.... My edit removed a conclusion that was not borne out by the data cited in the article, I haven't added anything at all. The statement I edited out could not be verified, so I removed it. I don't see the issue here, but if there is one please get back to me.

Thanks!

the issue of the use of the word Holocaust

Below is a summary on the issue of the use of the word Holocaust, and the political nature surrounding it, and the instigation of the controversy.

1995, James Mullin (a former librarian) and Jack Worrall (Chairman of the Rutgers University Economics Department) proposed that a study unit on the Irish Famine should be included in Holocaust Education Commission. The initiative had the support of the Holocaust Education Commission, which was largely composed of Jewish educators, including some of the death camp survivors. Despite this the Sunday Telegraph accused it of being the work of “hard line Irish American nationalists,” who were denigrating the memory of Holocaust survivors. The Sunday Telegraph omitted to mention that the Holocaust Education Commission endorsed its inclusion. New York State decided to introduce a Famine curriculum support for it cut across party and ethnic divisions, with American-Cuban Congressman Bob Mendenez, sponsored it, claiming that, ‘The Irish Famine teaches an important lesson about intolerance and inhumanity and the indifference of the British government to the potato blight that led to the mass starvation of one million people.’ The conservative press in both Britain and the United States disliked the anti- British sentiments expressed. The common tactic was to suggest that supporters of the Famine curriculum were drawing unsustainable comparisons with the Holocaust, despite this not being the case. The British government under John Major, regarded the teaching of Famine history with such seriousness was evident from the fact that the British Ambassador was recalled to New York so that he could make a formal protest to Governor Pataki. This intervention by the British Ambassador led the New York Daily News, which itself opposed the introduction of the curriculum, suggesting that, “Even after 150 years, the British still obviously fear the facts.” The London Times accusing Governor Pataki of pandering to Irish-American voters, while promoting a version of Irish history that was rooted in “the Fenian propaganda version which ambitious American politicians tend to prefer.” John Major chose not to support the Famine commemorations in Britain in 1995, describing them as being of concern only to Ireland. Tony Blair who succeeded Major, did not directly offer an apology for the actions of the British government 150 years earlier, Blair acknowledged that, “Those who governed in London at the time failed their people through standing by while a crop failure turned into a massive human tragedy.” The Daily Telegraph even before the official release of the speech, accused Blair of giving succour to “the self-pitying nature of Irish nationalism [and] the grievance culture which allows nationalist Ireland to place the blame for all the country’s ills at the door of the Brits, ultimately justifying terrorism.”

Christine Kinealy, "This Great Calamity." British sentiments expressed about the famine are only excuses for the failure ot that nation in helping a much smaller and very desperate neighbour,the famine is what it is and always will be,"A great inhumanity done to the Irish people be the British" the inhamanity was not helping and not responding to the crys for help..And 150 years later not having the guts to admit this inhumanity as did mr Blair.No politics,just pure inhumanity,in some ways a lot like the Holocaust..Breen32 (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC) It is my opinion the this summary highlights two things, the first being that the famine is still a deeply political issue, and secondly, the controversial nature of it is directed through the press. What I mean is, that the press creates the controversy. --Domer48 20:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on this please? Either here, there, or my talk page will be fine. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad revert

This was a bad idea. Reverting should, per Help:reverting, only be used against vandalistic edits. Bastun's edits improved the article; by reverting his good edits you make the article worse and raise the tension all round. Please, think again about this edit. Thanks, --John (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read over it again, as you suggest. The referenced information was removed, and I did suggest the use of the talk page. Thanks for the advice. --Domer48 (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, thanks for listening and for modifying your edit. I have since modified it further and contributed to the talk page again. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People by Religion Categories

Would not it be appropriate to also remove Irish Anglicans, Methodists, atheists etc. from categories where their faith does not apply to their notability? -RiverHockey (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much be in favour of that proposal RiverHockey (talk) religous cats do not belong in my opinion in an article were it plays no part in notability. BigDunc (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, very good proposel, and would support there removal %100. Fair play. --Domer48 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Barry

Can you explain your infobox change on the Tom Barry article please. I'm afraid i've not time to read his autobiography?! I also suggest you add this info into the actual article if it is relevant to his British Army serviceKernel Saunters (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Domer48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have just been blocked by an editor I'm in conflict with on an article, Please remove the block and report the editor for this abuse. This is the second time this editor has abused their admin tool with me. --Domer48 (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Agreed, the sysop who blocked you was in conflict with you, and no, a 3RR report does not have to be filed for someone to be blocked for edit warring. Request for unblocking has been declined. — nat.utoronto 11:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have just been blocked by an editor I'm in conflict with, Please remove the block and report the editor. --Domer48 (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better if an admin clearly unvinvolved were to apply the block, but you were clearly edit warring, judging from [45] [46] [47]. Is there some reason you're reverting so persistently, instead of moving forward to emphasize dicussion of your desired revisions? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussion page, it was being moved on. This editor has done this in the past. Do not attempt to justify this, the block should be removed. --Domer48 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the blocking admin to comment on their conflict of interest. But, your reply doesn't answer the question: why were you edit warring, in the first place? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that is something that can be raised later. This block was unjustified. I was not edit warring! Referenced information was being altered and removed. Again look at my constructive comments on the discussion page. In addition, were is the 3rr report? --Domer48 (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reading this will know it is a BS call. Why not just trow out the policies to placate a POV bandit. A clear COI, and it is justified. That this is the second time this editor has done this is there for all to see. That they stalk my edits, place comment and opinion into articles, and can block an editor who references everything they add speaks volumes. I'm not accepting this discission and wish to take it up a level. --Domer48 (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Domer48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Because the blocking admin has a conflict of interest, has done this before on the Kevin Barry Article and is creating problems on the Easter Rising article. In addition, I have not broken the 3rr rule, I replaced referenced information. In addition, I have used the talk page on the article and offered constructive comments, the blocking admin has not used the discussion page at all. Therefore, the block is not justified. No report was issued on the 3rr page, and did not allow for discussion, and I CAN NOT SEE THE POLICY which states a block can be issued without this report.

Decline reason:

I'm confused by your confusion. You violated the 3RR rule because you reverted the same information more than three times; that you believe that it belongs there is irrelevent. 3RR applies to everyone, because it's against the rules and also rather pointless to edit-war. That rule clearly says that people can be blocked for violating it; the purpose of the reporting page is to draw an admin's attention to a violation, but there's no point in reporting it if an admin has already noticed the violation. In the future, try the solutions at dispute resolution instead of edit-warring. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This block should be lifted the blocking admin is clearly abusing his admin privilages to push his POV on this and a number of other articles.--Padraig (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone show me the 3 reverts? Because I can not see them. --Domer48 (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R.Fiend blocks me because they wanted to remove referenced text, and now they are on the Easter Rising article adding WP:OR, them are their new side kick. This block was bang out of order, just to placate this POV pushing. --Domer48 (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin involved in a content dispute by inserting unreferenced and original reasearch should not be allowed to use his blocking powers on another editor. BigDunc (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the block, though R fiend should have let another admin place the block. Edit-warring is a seriously bad idea and WP:3RR is one of the very few hard rules we have here. Don't do it. --John (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you endorse the block - that is not a shock at all, you have shown your support for blocks and bans on countless Irish editors. Which one is it - edit warring or 3RR, the goal posts keep moving to ensure Domer48 is blocked - why where all editors that agreed with R. friend ignored. Also if you say that R friend shouldnt have blocked him then you disagree with the block. Unblock Domer - and THEN if warranted put the issue on report.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, avoid bringing your silly prejudice to the discussion, focus on policy. 3RR is a subset of edit warring, and Domer48 has therefore breached both. Don't do it, and avoid disruption and the block that inevitably follows. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. --John (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John we have had our differences and have since got over them. I was not edit warring. I used the talk page. I replaced referenced information. You are right though, R. Fiend should not have blocked me. So if you endorse the block, do up a 3rr report, allow me the oppertunity to defend my edits, and if I am in the wrong I will accept the block. As things stand, you would not accept this block if you were in my position. This is not the first time either that they have done this, it was the same on the Kevin Barry article also, and an admin stepped in, and had a word with them. I also have had the same hassel on the Easter Rising with this editor adding WP:OR. Best example, check out this edit] and see if you can see one reference to the information they added. The answer is none. --Domer48 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your considered response. While I am inclined to agree with you on the content issue, and I certainly understand your frustration, you have to accept that you were edit-warring and that you broke 3RR. I would certainly not have blocked an editor I was in a content dispute with, but this is a technical issue and does not detract from the fact that the block was justified. If you are looking for a suggestion, I suggest that you speak nicely to the blocking admin about the possibility of shortening the block, and that you refrain from edit-warring in the future. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am cool as can by my friend, it is just becoming evident to me how you operate when an editor is block - it hasnt gone unoticed! If you want evidence of this then I suggest we take to either of our talk pages.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
R. friend never produced evidence of a breach of 3RR, R. friend never gave a warning about the impending 3RR, R. friend never gave notice of the block, R. friend never gave him a chance to defend the edits or stop reverting, R. friend never said a word to the others editing that page, R. friend never should have blocked him - full stop.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like bringing your silly prejudice are not helpful John (talk) and im sure you dont need to be reminded of WP:NPA-- BigDunc (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't. I stand by what I said; such prejudice holds us back from creating a word-class encyclopedia and is therefore deeply, deeply silly and unhelpful. Saying so does not even come close to breaching policy. --John (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but you have to have a thick skin when dealing with that editor.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect John, I was hoping you could try do up a 3 rr because I did not break it. Go through the edit history, check the talk page. I did not break it. Show me that I did. Show me that I did not use the talk page. Show me that I did not reference everything I added. Agree with me that the references were altered. Agree with me that some of the references had nothing to do with what was added to the page. Just prove that I breached 3rr? --Domer48 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are saying you did not break 3RR I will have a look. It will take a few minutes. --John (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, at least that is something. More than R.Fiend could manage, I wonder if the block has anything to do with the warnings I placed on their page, even though they removed them, they are still in the page history. --Domer48 (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per WP:DTR this was not a good idea. We live and learn. --John (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 3RR to me

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Segi&diff=178569206&oldid=178545539 20:30, 17 December 2007
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Segi&diff=178605132&oldid=178603714 23:38, 17 December 2007
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Segi&diff=178685827&oldid=178674018 08:50, 18 December 2007
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Segi&diff=prev&oldid=178689328 09:25, 18 December 2007

Now, as I was saying, you need to either speak nicely to the blocking admin, or post this at the admin's noticeboard. I would suggest the former. Let me know if I can be any more help to you. --John (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt lower myself Domer48 - but thats just me. Everyone can see you have been wronged here although "fellow admins" rarely want to admit it.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats sound John thanks for that, now how can I make a post if I'm Blocked? Because look at the reverts I made, they were for totally different things. Not only that, at all times I used the talk page. Myself and Escorial82 were starting to work things out in a reasonable manner, until bill and ben showed up. Now I did not break the 3 rr, look at the edits and I'm sure you will agree. --Domer48 (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask the blocking admin for an unblock on your behalf, on condition you guarantee not to edit war in future, regardless of how right you think you are. Deal? --John (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John you have done more than enough already. However, I can not agree with being accused of edit warring. If the block is removed, it will be because it was unjustified. Since the ArbCom's I have been on my best. I did not break the 3rr. I will open a request for comment, or at the very least ask that R. Fiend be added to the list on the ArbCom, because the Kevin Barry and Easter Rising Articles would come under the heading of "The Troubles." Once again, thanks for all your help, but I can only accept the block being lifted unconditionally, otherwise I'm admitting to something I did not do. --Domer48 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to you. I'm disappointed that you do not see why this sort of edit-warring is unhelpful to our progress in creating a world-class encyclopedia. If you change your mind let me know and I can help you to bring this forwards. If you would prefer to sit out your block then that is your choice. --John (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you Domer! The block should be undone - and then the potential 3RR reported in the correct manner - if then there is a case to answer then a block could be on the cards. Also strip R. friend of his admin powers as he is unfit to hold them.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits which John was good enough to provide show that I did not edit war, and John did more than any of the admins who endorsed it. That they did not even trouble themselves to check the page history is a disgrace. That they then defended the indefencable says more about them than I need too. I will follow up on what Vin says is now obvious. This type of abuse of admin tools should not be accepted by us mear editors. That I followed the rules and got the bad end of the stick is just power for the course. They may be some who get their jollies of on my being blocked, but they are more to be pitied for there sad little pleasures. At the very least John was willing to put their head above the parapet, says more about the rest. --Domer48 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you're referring to clearly show you reverting four times within a 24 hour period of time, which is precisely what WP:3RR is against. I am confused as to why you think that they show you did not edit war. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look you had your chance to check this out and you did'ent. They are seperate issues, are you now suggesting that if you revert 4 times no matter what it is you break the 3rr. Cop on to yourself. The block was unjustified, the editor who blocked me, even if they were justified should not have done it. The editor who blocked me did not use the talk page at all. And now the two of them are onto the Easter Rising article, which I happen to edit, and adding all the WP:OR they can while I'm blocked. The blocking editor removes the warrnings I placed on their page. That the blocking editor pulled a similer stunt on the Kevin Barry article, and had to be pulled by another admin says a lot. No report was placed on the 3rr page. So your saying your confused, try not bending the rules after the fact then. Now since you have already shown yourself to be less than helpful, why don't we leave it at that then. --Domer48 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, you seem confused. You broke the rules (there are certain exceptions to 3RR such as reverting unambiguous vandalism and WP:BLP violations, but this was not one of them) and you were justly blocked for doing so. Wikilawyering about the 3rr noticeboard is neither here nor there as there is no requirement that a report be made at the noticeboard. You do have a point that R. fiend should not have blocked someone he was in conflict with and I am happy to endorse that that was an error on his part, but that does not excuse your breach of the rules. Admins are human too you know and do make mistakes. If you are able to learn from this, you can actually improve as an editor. If you repeat this behaviour your next block will likely be much longer. The choice is yours; choose well. Remember I offered to help you; that offer still stands. We all make mistakes and admitting your mistake will not diminish you in anybody's eyes, quite the contrary. Think about it, please. --John (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, I'm not going to pussy foot around here, I added referenced information, the references were altered and information added. I went to the talk page, and raised it there. Now there were then additional changes, I addressed it on the talk page and changed it. Seperate issues. Myself and an other editor while in a dispute, started a reasonable discussion, and I offered constructive suggestions. Then those two POV merchants show up. Now two seperate issues, always using the talk page, offering suggestions to resolve the issue. Then an admin with a history of abusing their admin tools, gets involved, (note, this is not the first time I have had to deal with this editor) slaps in a block. Now while this discussion has been taking place, rather than defend their actions, they are of causing trouble on another article. This is pure BS. This stinks to high heaven, and that is a fact. --Domer48 (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Front Page Irish War News.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Front Page Irish War News.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


R. friend

Domer, what do you want to do about this block? If you want to raise it at ANI please let me know as I would like to have my say about it.

I for one think you should!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vin sorry for not getting back to you srtight away to thank you for your support. I have asked John what is the best way to deal wiht this editor. They will probably offer the same advice as you, and I will more than likley take that routh. I have just asked Alison what is the story of having them added to the Troubles ArbCom, as the articles I'm being stalked on would come under that heading. Anywho, thanks again, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re your edit here; remember that civil dialogue about the best way to proceed is far more likely to lead to a result than issuing another templated warning, which, as I already pointed out, is contrary to WP:DTR. Often, just walking away can be the most effective way of dealing with someone you find problematic. However, if you continue to have problems with R. fiend, it may be that a report at WP:AN/I will be necessary. I hope it doesn't come to that as AN/I is often just a drama fest without any real resolution possible. If you can swallow your pride and annoyance (difficult I know) and focus on the compromises both of you will need to make to improve the article, you will keep the moral high ground, which is the greatest victory possible here, I believe. Let me know, please, if you require any additional help. --John (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, they are branching out onto other articles, and it is just to provoke, but it will not bother me. I'm getting the diff's together for a report, because they are just taking you and Fozz for a ride. I managed to get an article started today regardless of this carry on. Now it is obvious I'm having problems with this editor, and that even though it's obvious to everyone, I have to do the spade work on this, and will. It will just take a day or two. --Domer48 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the article. At the end of the day that is what we are here for. --John (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Hello, Domer48. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. The exact section is here SirFozzie (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Easter Rising

Domer, can you check Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for details about using talk pages, and remember what I said about the moral high ground. --John (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, this editor is walking all over our policies. Now am I right or wrong, did they introduce POV into an edit they should not have made in the first place. To leave it out of that discussion covers up our objections. --Domer48 (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have faith in the community to sort it out. It is often (though not always) quite good at doing this. You urgently need to cool down and have a cup of tea or similar. At the moment you are in danger of being seen as part of the problem and not part of the solution, as they say. Let others look at it, as they no doubt are doing. Take care, --John (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok John, I'll take my tank of the lawn, thanks. --Domer48 (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you. I need to go out and do some real world things for the next couple of hours myself. I confidently expect not to see you blocked again when I return. Please do your best not to let me down. It's amazing what stepping out for even a few hours can do to defuse these things. Best, --John (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring Admins

Domer; you mentioned in the recent Admin Power Abuse case on "Massacres" that you had been subject a block (?) by an Admin who was edit-warring (I think). This appears to be rather common (or is becoming so). Can you provide with me with the diffs? -;) - Sarah777 (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring

Since the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts per day, and since you clearly participated in an edit war with Traditional unionist, and since you only recently were blocked for a similar offense, I've blocked you for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Domer48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

With all dur respect, first, I have not participated in an edit war with Traditional unionist. I used the talk page. I also used edit summaries. The block you mention is disputed, and SirFozzie opened an AN/I report. The editor who blocked me was involved in a content dispute with me. They have a track record of such things. Did I breach the 3rr? I did not, and had no intension to either.--Domer48 (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As has been explained to you above, WP:3RR is not an entitlement, but an electric fence leading to an automatic block. You have, nevertheless, been edit warring. Given your previous block and numerous warnings, this block is even rather lenient. — Coren (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.


IMPORTANT AND URGENT - Domer, could you tell me where you committed the deed that got you blocked? (Earlier I asked you for the name of an Admin and you didn't tell me; who was it?) Regards -- Sarah777 (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Londonderry, North Yorkshire, you would only have to read my talk page to know that block they refere to was disputed. All they done was read the block log and said here is a likely lad. Block. --Domer48 (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But I put a question on User talk:Heimstern and it seems he blocked "Trad Unionist" as well. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

They said I was edit warring, which I was not, and had not intension to either. But that they said "since you only recently were blocked for a similar offense," that really pissed me off. Just look at my page, and then there is the AN/I, that has not gone away. --Domer48 (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Domer - the North Yorkshire one looks like 3 reverts each to me - what am I missing? You gotta be careful here - we're in a minefield and I got blown up once! (Sarah777 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Check the 3rr report, there is no way, I was going to get into it on that article. All the blocking admin has to do is check those articles, and talk to me about edit warring. Sorry Sarah, User:R. fiend is the tool abusing admin, still tyring it on with me on the Easter Rising article. Was at it on the Segi article, Kevin Barry, Patrick Pearse and the Irish Volunteers. --Domer48 (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, how many 2rr warnings do you see getting reported? "since you only recently were blocked for a similar offense," that is bad form. --Domer48 (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the 2rr; but I thought you were saying Yorkshire isn't 3rr? --Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks like you are right, you need more than 3 for 3RR. I've asked Alison to look into it. -- Sarah777 (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarah, I would like to know why I have been blocked? The blocking admin has said that “the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts per day”, that’s fine. So I would like to know what is the difference with these then, this report and and this report. Now I dispute that I was edit warring. In light of this report by Fozz, I have a serious problem with this block. Is it the case that we have a two sets of policies? The recent block that is mentioned by the blocking admin is for these edits, 20:30, 17 December 2007, 23:38, 17 December 2007, 08:50, 18 December 2007, 09:25, 18 December 2007. Now no report was filed, I was just blocked by an admin involved in a discussion. Fozz was the only one who would agreed that the Diff's did show they were for [different things]. Now, admins are quick to block, and slow when you put in an unblock request. I’d like the block lifted, and my concerns addressed, not much to ask.

Purely for information purposes, I am not endorsing or reversing the block, but I believe these are the edits that caused the problem.[48][49] [50]AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To followup with Sarah here, I'm okay with this block given your "opponent", User:Traditional unionist, has picked up an identical block on the same article. When I look, I see an edit-war over a rather trivial matter (as these things always are). Furthermore, from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive ". Both of you were being "clearly disruptive" and both of you have a history of it. From what I can see here, the admin blocked you both to prevent ongoing disruption. All said, I'm not going to formally review your block and will let another admin give their opinion instead - Alison ❤ 22:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alison for that, and you have hit the nail on the head, a rather trivial matter. That they had been going at it, and had it explained to them, I thought they were just being disruptive. After my second edit, I went to the talk page. Because I said this ****** is serious about this. There is now way I was going to get into an edit war with them over this. Now I will pull you up on the “Both of you were being "clearly disruptive" and both of you have a history of it.” That I get into difficulties I can attest, but I do not set out to disruptive, never have and never will. The articles I edit have a history. Now is there any admin want to address the questions I have asked. Alison, that dose not include you, I would not wish it on ye. LOL --Domer48 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer's unblock request - surprise rejection

See Domer? More Admin logic! "Given your previous block" (eh, the one everyone, including Admins agrees was illegitimate and Admin abuse), your block was, believe it or not, "lenient". Message Domer? Yep. Admins may make abusive blocks but it stains your record, not theirs! This would be funny it it weren't so pathetic! (Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

So, what is 3RR?

Found this on the List of massacres talkpage:

"This is how I read the "four reverts": 

   * R.fiend sets page to his preferred version. Edit, not revert.

   * Returns page to his preferred version. Strike one.

   * Returns page to his preferred version, again. Strike two.

   * Returns page to his preferred version, again, again. Strike three. You're still in.

Regards to both of you. AnnH (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)"

So, if she is right, Domer is maybe TWO edits short of 3RR. Surely we need a solid rule? We have had way too many cases of edit-warring Admins and Admins abusing their power to leave such discretion in the "warring" call. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think Alison has explained it pretty clearly above. The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. There is much anger about poor Admins across Wiki and way too many cases of Admin abuse of power to allow such discretion. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not seeing any "admin abuse of power" here given 1) the rules, 2) 3RR is not an entitlement, as I pointed out, and 3) a report was placed at AN3 and an uninvolved admin acted upon it. Where's the abuse here? - Alison ❤ 22:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General point; Admins frequently abuse power; I've had personal experience. Thus, the discretion around 3RR should be removed - most especially the discretion to short-circuit it. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Well, no. Some admins abuse power, some admins frequently abuse power, even. If you don't like the discretion around 3RR, the best thing to do is go to the talk page or to ANI and discuss the matter and have policy changed. It's currently set the way it is to prevent gaming the system, where editors are ostensibly edit-warring (as here) and where editors do the three-reverts-per-day thing for months on end. Calling "admin abuse" at the drop of a hat, as you have been doing of late, only cheapens the whole idea and eventually, people stop listening to you - Alison ❤ 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wolf is a bad analogy. Folk may well stop listening - but every time I cried there was a wolf there. :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, here was my contribution to the AN/I Fozz set up.

My dealings with this editor have been very unpleasant. On the Kevin Barry article they abuse their admin tools , and then had to be warned about it. They follow me to the Segi and start there, adding thing to referenced text. They then go and block me]. Admin John was decent enough to provide the diff's. While other editors noted the COI, which is an abuse of admin tools, Fozz was the only one who would agreed that the Diff's did show they were for [different things]. I did not even get put on a 3rr report. I reported them for a 3 rr same situation, and they walk away from it. Now it has got to the stage were Fozz gave them a strong Fozz warning, which they ignore, and tell John to to leave it in. Regardless of all this they still can not be civil. It was as a result of being here that I learn that they have a history of this. Another Admin had to step in on Patrick Pearse. They Block on another editor, and thought light of it. And have been pulled judging from a page littered with civility. Now they have followed me to more articles Irish Volunteers http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Se%C3%A1n_Heuston&curid=572202&diff=179243131&oldid=179232200 Sean Huston]. Having filed another 3 rr I notice they still have not been blocked for edit warring. And still the abuse gose on. To top it all of they abuse their admin tool now to edit an article which is protected with no agreement reached, and dispite being warned not to. It over to you now to sort this out, because what can I do. --Domer48 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, that was over a week ago and we've all been over it already. I'm not seeing the relevance of it here now and agreed with you at the time that R. Fiend was an involved admin. Heimstern, on the other hand, is not. Big difference - Alison ❤ 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heimstern, perhaps without knowing the background, factored R Fiends totally illegitimate block into his decision. He used it as justification. That is a mistake. OK? Admins very often make mistakes and very seldom admit to them. IMHO. And in my experience. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]


Bad news Domer old pal - far from relieving from a dodgy block Alison has threatened to put me on probation! It's in times of crises you know you will have the courage to stand for what's right I guess. -- Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...except you're not right. None of you are right. Domer, Sarah. QUIT IT with the edit warring. If you have problems, the solution is not to go reverting willy-nilly. Now cut it out. SirFozzie (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not edit-warred; never did more than two reverts. And I'm not a quitter. OK? -- Sarah777 (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, I have not "threatened to put [you] on probation". Far from it. I've suggested that your behaviour will land you with being put on probation, as indeed it will. This is a totally separate issue to the Domer thing here. I'll stand for what I believe to be right, just as anyone else, and you know it. I've stood up to you and for you on enough occasions that you should know that by now - Alison ❤ 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK Ali; this isn't really personal as I hope you realise. But 3RR is a mess as currently administered - right across Wiki. It is an invitation to abuse power; or indulge bias. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
That's a patently unfair claim, a simple analysis of this situation shows two editors violating the spirit of the WP:3RR rule, as evidenced by their WikiLawyering. Both received the same block. It looks correct and fair. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. It was not. Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I’m being treated to the spirit and letter of the law, how nice. How many 3 Revert reports are there on the report page with just 3 reverts? Selective use of policies, plain and simple. Fair enough, I now know I’m up against a stacked deck. No point me filing 3rr or making reports to AN/I, it’s a closed shop. That’s fine, but what I will not take is the pontificating. I’ll continue to edit, put up with the POV merchants, and watch how the policies are twisted and bent to suit the needs of the moment. But no more lectures on my talk page, or lessons in hypocrisy, had about enough of that thanks. Sarah, thanks for the support, and if you ever need some give us a shot. --Domer48 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not supporting (just) you Domer; I'm supporting all the victims (which have included myself) of the ridiculous discretion given to admins whose neutrality and/or reasoning ability is non existent (excluding all the Admins involved here, of course). We have a situation now, even with a set of top-drawer Admins involved where you are blocked for not breaching 3RR while TU remains unpunished for breaching an absolute ruling by Arbcom! Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, TU was blocked as well as you, and TU is not breaching any ruling of the troubles arbcom, No editor was placed on probation or 1RR by the arbcom, there was a ruling that in future any editor on the list of those involved in the arbcom or any other editor that takes part in edit wars on troubles related articles Could be placed on probation and 1RR by the admins. To date the only editor to have been placed on this probation was Aatomic1, and that was after numerous warnings from the admins.--Padraig (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Padraig; I wasn't blocked (yet) - that was Domer. (TU was involved in twi simultaneous edit wars apparently). He most certainly did breach his Arbcom probation conditions. Clearly, without doubt; on "The Troubles" he is allowed one edit per week (like yourself btw); he made two reverts of my edit in a few minutes. Just like Domer's (alleged) 3RR, that's a slam dunk. Mandatory block. I sure didn't make the rules; but I want the discretionary ones abolished and the mandatory ones enforced with the same rigid consistency that's applied to myself and Domer. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sarah I REPEAT NOBODY IS ON PROBATION FROM THE ARBCOM, go read the ruling. As for your reverting the Ireland article, didn't realise you where so petty because I didn't support you earlier when you where clearly in the wrong.--Padraig (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(a) I was not clearly in the wrong - you accused me of edit-warring; I was no more warring than you were on the Ireland article (except I made rather fewer edits before you made the accusations).
(b) This isn't the first time you've done this; stop using me to get brownie points with Unionist editors.
(c)I don't reckon that responding robustly to statement that could get me blocked is "petty".
Sarah777 (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, please listen to what Padraig is saying here. Nobody's currently on probation here. Nobody. The 1RR rule does not apply to anyone right now. Step back and read it through - Alison ❤ 02:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Arbcom ruling

Participant probation

1) The named participants in this matter: David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Major Bonkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log); Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log); Conypiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Traditional unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), W. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to set of articles considered in this matter, including articles which relate to the Ulster banner and baronets.

Terms of probation

2) Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert. 

   Support:

      1. Fred Bauder 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
      2. Although the terminology is messy here; "probation" has meant something quite different in other cases. Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
      3. We need to make a better list of users on probation, but yes I support this type of probation. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
      4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
      5. (Moved to be an Enforcement) Though unused right now. James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
      6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
      7. Charles Matthews 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you failed to read the thing clearly, the list in 1) and the sought probation failed to be passed. In the second 2) that only applies to those that would be placed on probation in future, but the arbcom give everyone a clean slate at its ending, and only ruled on future cases of edit warring on troubles articles.--Padraig (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you think Domer should be unblocked? If so, why have you made no plea on his behalf? You seem very concerned that TU (who was simultaneously warring on two different articles with both myself and Domer) be not blocked than you are with the injustice of Domers block or the possibility of getting me blocked. No? Sarah777 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah I haven't even had a chance to look yet at what Domer was blocked for, so until then I can't comment, but as Domer is not protesting about the block much I would guess that he did overstep the mark, maybe not intentionly, but until I check I can't comment and if I think he was blocked wrongly I will voice my objection to it.--Padraig (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Domer is not protesting about the block much !!! For f.. sake! What can he do?? Have you read what he said? He feels he was stitched up! And does calling on Bastun to help your edit-warring not breach all sorts of rules? (Of course I'm not saying you are not 100% right in your edit there, but warring is warring, isn't it?) Anyway, as Domer is blocked while we edir maybe you'd take a look - it won't take long? Alison has no sympathy, btw. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I have plenty of sympathy for Domer, Sarah, but I'm not about to unblock him. Nor am I unblocking TU - Alison ❤ 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the article at issue, both of them made 3RR, and were blocked so there is not much that can be done on that. As for the dispute I have to say both of them are right in their own way, I started a discussion on the talk page and suggested a compromise wording that takes into account both views, hopefully both sides will find it acceptable.--Padraig (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish famine

Domer, this has got out of hand. My posts to the talk page were always in relation to the O'Donnell quote. I have no reason to want to keep discussion of the genocide claim out of the article. I want the case to be made strongly and clearly so readers can appreicate the extent and impact of the famine on Ireland, and how it relates to the national question and the history of relations between Britain and Ireland. The O'Donnell quote is misrepresented, but don't mix up my opposition to it being used in the way that it is with opposition to discussion of the genocide claim. There is plenty to support the argument but I would like it copper-fastened against the basic criticisms of the view. The famine is taught as genocide, alongside genocides, in a number of American states. See here for suggested curriculum material from New Jersey (or here for the same source listed it alongside the Holocaust, Cambodia, Native American genocide, Armenia and the Ukraine). There's lots of supporting material for the view, my only concern at the moment is the O'Donnell quote. I'm not harking back to it - its simply the only thing that I object to. --sony-youthpléigh 08:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations at Talk:Great_Irish_Famine#Manipulating_and_disruptive_editing_II

You are repeatedly accusing me of bad faith editing at the above-mentioned talk page location. This is against Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:AGF. I have repeatedly asked you not to do this. Please apologise and retract the statements. Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia.

Cease the attacks, please

I strongly recommend you observe WP:CIVIL with your comments, such as [51]. I can understand your frustration at this point, but you are getting to the point where your behaviour is just as watched as theirs. Yes, Mark called my attention to it, but in this case he does have a point. SirFozzie 20:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might point out that Sony has several times stated that he does not assume good faith in my case. Just for some balance. (Sarah777 22:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
When? Diffs would be nice. --sony-youthpléigh 22:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK Sony, here is one: "You [Sarah777] write: "So. Ireland is an "aberration" (Red King) and is "not a country" (Sony) ..." This is a vile misrepresentation of your fellow editors. I am hurt and offended that you would treat me in this way.
Taramoon, please refrain from categorising others for the purpose of purporting that their contributions are POV. --sony-youthtalk 00:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)"
That took about 15 seconds to find. You really want me to dig out more? Or maybe coming from Sony accusations of vile misrepresentation aren't accusations of "bad faith". This is boring, frankly. (Sarah777 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Taramoon, at least, had the courtesy to apologise for the comments preceding ("Okay, I withdraw that, per below. Didn't mean to aim it at anyone in particulsr. Taramoon 02:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)"). --sony-youthpléigh 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, the other person must always do the apologising? (Sarah777 01:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]


What ArbCom is

It's the last, and most expansive step of WP:DR. If you guys want, I will open a case on Request for Arbitration.. but it takes a while to run, IF it's accepted (they might say that it's a content dispute, etcetera. I will talk to SWATJester about either doing a private mediation, or opening an ArbCom dispute. SirFozzie 12:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shame, because it isn't a dispute at all. It's dressed up as one by Users Sarah777 and Domer48, but the actual underlying issue is their repeated incivility and harassment. In fact, we can even see a direct example of that above. Sarah777 in particular has a long history of systematically distorting the various attempts of many different editors to get her to restrain her tone. I do realise that it is wearisome to go back and analyse all this, but I think SirFozzie if you were willing to spend some time on it, you would quickly see that very many times Sony-youth and others including myself have tried to ask for evidence, make NPOV alterations and challenged on issues, tried to remain calm and asked for incivility to desist, only to have it distorted, confused and deliberately thrown in our faces. At times when Admins have been involved, these users have either played dumb or acted hurt and innocent. Yet you can quite clearly see how Sarah777 operates above. This shouldn't have to go to Arbcom; as in my complaint yesterday, it should be dealt with as clear-cut cases of breaches of WP rules. The fact that it isn't effectively gives these users a green light to go on with the abusive behaviour, which we see above. I think they both will eventually be blocked but leaving casualties and disappointed editors along the way. MarkThomas 12:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abusive beaviour is a two way street, as the diffs Domer posted show. SirFozzie 12:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean in the original post on Talk:Great Irish Famine that I complained about? I've just been back and reviewed that. Which of my comments in his diff are abusive? I mean, my comments, not his heavily distorted interpretation of them. MarkThomas 13:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So everyone is cool with me being accused of vile misrepresentation way back in February? Could I just point out that that is way worse than some of the "incivility" I'm accused in the RfC by Sony and Mark? And as I said, there is much more where that came from; but I couldn't be bothered looking for it. At least not yet. (Sarah777 20:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

ArbCom

Since it looks like with regards to the ongoing issue, nothing will be solved until ArbCom gets involved, I have created an ArbCom case about the ongoing issues with Great Irish Famine and its editors. I will repeat what I said to Sarah, that I agree with a great many points that you made, but I STRONGLY urge you to be CIVIL during the ArbCom case. SirFozzie 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I think you broke the formatting (if you look at the RfA page it looks like it split off your quote into a new subsection). Secondly, try to keep it clear and concise. We're not arguing the case right now, we're telling ArbCom why they need to take the case. Definitely keep it below 500 words, try to use as few as possible, Focus on the harassment you feel you're getting from MarkThomas for example. I'm kinda stuck at the moment (work sucks ;) but I'll try to poke my head in from time to time. SirFozzie 17:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Had a free moment and fixed it for you. SirFozzie 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

Hey Domer, I'm about to leave work for the day, but here's some suggestions on harmonious editing: (this was an answer to a question on my Request for Admin

1) Get an outside opinion to look at your work. Sometimes, you cannot see the forest for the trees, and the tendency to dig your heels in can become overwhelming. A second set of eyes and a friendly warning is always good to say "Maybe you're a little off base there".. and pull you back to safer ground.

2) Avoid the fence of 3RR. When it comes to true edit conflicts and not just reverting a banned user or outright vandalism, if you're reverting more than once, you better have taken it to the talk page.

3) "It has to be right, but it doesn't has to be right Right NOW." Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, so taking the time to discuss any changes you want to make and a willingness to LISTEN to other viewpoints will save you so much grief.

4) Having a sense of humor about things can reduce your stress level considerably. If you can't laugh, because you're so angry over an edit war? It's time to stand up, get away from the computer for a bit, and de-stress.

Also remember, 3RR is an absolute limit, not an entitlement. You CAN be blocked for doing less than 3RR a day, if it's determined that you're edit warring. You've done good by asking me, I'll take a look at it when I have some free time (hopefully tonight) - Sir Fozzie

I see what happened on the NI talkpage and I can see why you are steaming; I've reported it to SirF; let's leave it with him awhile. Excellent advice on 3RR (same as mine!!) DON'T - even if all around you seem to be doing it! Best regards - from someone who carries the scars of leaping before looking! (Sarah777 22:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm working on what you and Sarah brought up.. however, as the saying goes, the best laid plans of mice and man, gang aft agley... Work is absolutely crazy. Just some suggestions, real quick, for the RfArb, take a look at what I put in the evidence section. Be concise, be factual, and link diffs for any evidence. SirFozzie 17:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Mistake, probably. I'm the one who brought the case. *shrugs* Go ahead, but remember.. CONCISE and FACTUAL. The problem with that archive is it's all over the place. Restrict it to the editors in the ArbCom case in general (unless you have something really over the top elsewhere). But make sure that you back up everything you say in that section. SirFozzie 21:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can use stuff outside the article itself, remember it's viewing user conduct, not just on the article talk page. I think I've already used those diffs, look at the evidence page.. but I think if you describe (again, BRIEFLY) what was going on and illustrate bad conduct. Also, there may be things you could have done better. Admit them, it looks better than having your opponents use it against you... SirFozzie 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just pinging you to read this section above. Be honest, be factual and be brief. State that you tried to assume good faith and work with other users and could not, and this is because "X" happened (and link diffs again) SirFozzie 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure on it, but as long as the source URL was good at one point (and qualified as a RS), I think it could stay in the article. I'd check over with WP:RS and read up to see what should happen in this situation. BTW... If you need me for the next few days, it might be best to contact me via email. I've come down with some kind of bug, and will be editing VERY sporadically. SirFozzie 18:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 22:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on SirFozzie's page that you had not been given notice that this case had been opened today. This was a completely inadvertent oversight by me, for which I apologize. Newyorkbrad 22:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The famine book

No, mate, I haven't questioned the notability of the book. I think you may be misinterpreting a previous comment of mine where I said that Toibin and Ferriter's book, The Irish Famine was by no means the definitive scholarly account of the Famine. As mentioned several times previously, this is a formatting tweak that is fully supported by our manual of style. Apologies, but I don't feel as though I have to justify my good faith article creations to you, mate. While I've been away for all of the deletion discussions, I am quite confident that the article satisfies all applicable notability guidelines and policies. Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Free_the_POW's_Mural_Belfast.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Free_the_POW's_Mural_Belfast.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 17:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I notice you are edit-warring on Mairéad Farrell. "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." (from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule)

Please stop and discuss in talk towards reaching a compromise. Thanks. --John 19:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theres more than him at it - infact I would say that this edit is pure provakation. But sure ignore that eh.--Vintagekits 19:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provocation it may be but it has drawn me into the argument via my watching this page! (To keep an eye on Domer - in case he goes on one of his 3RR binges!!) (Sarah777 02:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Duke of Hamilton

Like what? Did you actually look at what you're retagging? Brendandh 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chris Buttigieg 11:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chris Buttigieg 11:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't

I notice you said: "Now I’m requesting that you have a none biased admin review this article, as your contrabuting to it is untenable." I think you misunderstand the role of an admin here. I have the absolute right to edit any article I feel like here. If I ever do any admin actions (ie blocking or deletion) that you are unhappy with, at that point you may complain about me. As I have not done so, I don't think your complaint has any merit. I have already pointed out to you where you can go to obtain the views of other admins; WP:ANI is another resource you may use if you feel the need. Finally I did reply to the message you left me; I'll repeat the part of my answer which related to your behaviour as you seem to have missed it:

"There was nothing wrong with removing the category, and your use of a boilerplate vandalism warning with an established user was unwise. More to the point that was definitely not vandalism. Neither of you has behaved well. It would be better to try to listen to one another's points of view and try to compromise."

I hope that clarifies things for you. --John 15:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you obviously still don't get it. First of all it is inappropriate to take this conversation about your behaviour to article talk. Secondly, your edit summary is decidedly uncivil. I shall try to state simply and clearly what I will and won't do:
I will ensure that behaviour on these articles improves, including yours, such that it is conducive to civil discussion. If you are unable to do this, I will ensure that you receive a break from editing.
I will not necessarily act as you seem to wish me to. In particular, as an involved party in the discussion, I will certainly not take any administrative action in relation to it. Nonetheless I think you should be careful with the way you speak to people in this sometimes-controversial area of Wikipedia.
Giving vandalism warnings to people with whom you are engaged in a content dispute is a mistake. Please do not do it again. Thanks. --John 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Careful Domer - Sticking tags on Admin talkpages is slightly unwise! Please try and keep calm. (Sarah777 20:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sarah your right of course, I should know better. Thanks for the advice. Kind Regards--Domer48 20:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Great Irish Famine

I request that you stop editing that article for now. The very last thing you want to do with an active ArbCom case is get stuck in an edit war over that article. I may request that the article get protected during this.. because obviously, as a party to the ArbCom case, I am not supposed to do such things. SirFozzie 16:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought it up already, on the Workshop page. Again, don't get stuck in to an edit war here. It makes the other side look worse. SirFozzie 17:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, you did some great research on the famine but you seem to have gone into hyper-drive. Can you not see that maybe there is a bit of niggling or provocation going on? They know that ArbCom are watching all this and at the moment you're like a wee bull in a chinashop!(Sarah777 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sarah I hear what your saying, but these POV Bandits who contribute nothing but opinion, and can produce no referenced material to back up their opinions are intolerable. The hoops I have to jump through on articles is a joke. And when you look at the links on some of the articles THAT I PUT IN, and the amount of referencing on those articles! their having a laugh. Look at this [52] no references, and this [53], what about this one [54], or this [55]. That’s just on this article. I put a needs citation tag on one such article, Jesus I thought they were having a break down. This assume good faith thing, ye right! I look at what is happening here and I’ll tell you what I assume? Thanks for the thought, Kind Regards --Domer48 21:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC) PS just finished this post and look at this [56] and thats an Admin![reply]
The only safe way to go here is to gather the evidence of all unreasonable claims, double-standards etc. Remember, it is to get a ruling on the harassment you are getting that SirFozzie has started the Arb.com. It is a slow process. Remember, patience is strength! (Sarah777 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Core policy

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (from Wikipedia:Verifiability). Hope this helps you. --John 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops John again! YOU are the Admin complained about above at [6]. But I do think "Unfortunately for your POV-pushing endeavours" is a bit overly aggressive (and not just because I share Domer's pov!) But he has unearthed some excellent horses!(Sarah777 22:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If I came out with something like that I would be blocked - no doubt about it. Ironically it would be John that would probably block me to.--Vintagekits 22:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the really important question here is how did he manage to snag the name "JOHN"? It must have been the most sought-after handle on Wiki. I had to go to 777 to get a handle with me name on it! (Sarah777 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You asked "Since you have told me the core principle for adding and restoring material, what about removing material where is the onus? Would that be the same onus on the editor wishing to remove something to show that it is justified. For example removing POW cat's am I right in asking show us a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs".
No, as I say, it doesn't work like that. Check out the policy I linked to at the top of the section and you'll see exactly what I mean. --John 00:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to Bobby Sands

Please don't revert my edits, me edits are in line with WP:CAT, WP:NPOV and WP:POV, yours are not. Calling members of the IRA Prisoners of war is deeply offensive. Here's a lesson in history for you, Airey Neave was captured by the Nazis, he escaped twice and was caught and tortured by the Gestapo, he died 35 years later aged 63 when the IRA blew him up. In short, Airey Neave was a POW, those who put a bomb under his car were terrorist. --Hera1187 09:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airey Neave wasn't killed by the IRA. Scalpfarmer 09:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ye I know? New one on me.--Domer48 09:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So much for the history teacher then! Scalpfarmer 10:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That rivers of blood, is it not?--Domer48 10:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no I'm thinking of Enoch Powell! My mistake D-. --Domer48 11:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


POW. Your tone is objectionable but thank you for the explanation.--MJB 19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)

Domer. I appreciate the good work you have done in finding the SCS source and its relation to POW status. I respect its validity and would support its use a source to justify the adding of the POW cat to SCS prisoners.

However, please note that Michael Gaughan was not a SCS prisoner and therefore your source is inconsequential. You have twice added unsourced content that has been removed. I would ask you to read WP:V#Burden of evidence which explains why it is appropriate to remove unsourced content. Once again, I ask you to provide a reference for Gaughan as a POW or remove the content again yourself. Continuing to add unsourced content after it has been challanged is a violation of policy. Thank you. Rockpocket 20:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Great Irish Famine

I didn't actually do any of the factual stuff – I just took the section as it was previously and rearranged the paragraphs so that it read a bit better. All the unsourced stuff was there previously. I might go back and take a look at it if I have a chance, but I'm unlikely to have any real free time in the near future.

Jean McConville

He has breached 3RR on that - go ahead and report him, I would but I'm off to bed.--Vintagekits 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I am not sure quite what was happening on my page, but it seems to have stopped thanks to you. Brixton Busters 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon. Is there anyone I can complain to about this non-stop harassment? Brixton Busters 14:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PoW status for IRA Convicts?

Your "reliable neutral source" only uses the term Prisoners of War in quote marks AND, in the passage to which you link, refers only to those interned for 7 days or less. I'm not convinced it's evidence for listing any IRA prisoners as PoWs, but certainly it isn't evidence for all of them.

The army document very rarely refers to War in the context of the NI Troubles (as distinct from the Cold War or World Wars). When it does it tends to be of the form The events of 1969 could easily have turned into open civil war, but did not etc. What exactly were you trying to prove with this one? beano 09:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request

As a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation regarding articles about Ireland, Northern Ireland and its people and groups 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.

This would either supplant the ArbCom case, depending on how things turn out, or work along side on it. It's a good opportunity to try to get everything out and get focused on writing an encyclopedia SirFozzie 14:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Roger Casement Grave Glasnevin.JPG. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Roger Casement.JPG. The copy called Image:Roger Casement.JPG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Civil_Order_poster_1981.JPG

I have tagged Image:Civil_Order_poster_1981.JPG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rlest 12:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making repeated false allegations against me

Please stop making false allegations against me, as you have done in a number of places, most recently on the talk page of Great Irish Famine. I have emailed several admins who I know to be impartial and asked them to examine your conduct in detail - you have been warned. Thanks. MarkThomas 12:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please be aware of the WP:3RR on Great Irish Famine. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel Bastun (as do I) that he has already broken as per WP:3RR the spirit of the rule? If so, you may wish to complain. Certainly Domer48 should also not be in my opinion performing any further edits on Great Irish Famine given that there is currently an Arbcom on it. MarkThomas 13:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think taking a complaint further would be counterproductive at this point. I'd recommend no further edits by you, Mark, or Domer, or anyone involved in the ArbCom. Everyone probably needs to chill a bit and go edit something else. :-) Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that GoldHeart has reverted it to the Domer48 version just now though. What we have here is a concerted activity. All a bit sad really. MarkThomas 13:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but why let obviously one-purpose accounts call the tune on this topic. Been busy, and actually I'm a bit lost to the argument about the page. Could someone elucidate, it would help, thanks. GH 15:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise :-) But in brief - the page was referred to Arbcom. Editing died down. A SPA appeared a couple of days ago and reverted to Domer's version (with a spurious edit summary). I drew attention to this on the talk page (without reverting) and asked an admin to look at it. An edit war ensued. Another apparent SPA turned up today, reverting to Mark's version. (This is the one you reverted). Page protection has been requested. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Helps, a weeny bit:) GH 16:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dormer48. Still puzzles me to what's going on. Haven't been with it all the was since the beginnings. Will have a closer look. GH 17:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows what the argument's over. It all blew up on me because I commented out a single quote. Now I'm to be "repremanded" because I want a checkuser on who these SPAs are. --sony-youthpléigh 17:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the whole Genesis seems pretty innocuous to me, and has grown a life of its own, with a few over-the-water editors getting up to their necks to boot. Generally the Irish history articles are very much to the point , and are very much npov. Which is much more than I can say for some other quarters, whose editors should be looking at their own "stuff" first. GH 18:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk of WP:OWNership of articles simply propogates the problem here. The whole "us and them" angle is counter-productive to an ongoing collaborative effort. Rockpocket 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, that's my point. And that's the way I've always operated. GH 18:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dormer48, I have noticed some of that all right, I remember that. When these issues get protracted, that's where I lose the plot. Sometimes when it goes to talk, some of the editors get involved in equivocation and "red herring syndrome", and it just goes on. Keep the referenced and notes on the talk page, it would be a good benchmark to go back to. GH 18:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They say they want balance, and that I’m pushing a POV, surly the way to stop me in my tracks is to provide references which counteract what I’m saying? But they will not, no its much easer to call me names. You reverted the article, did you see the amount of referenced information I put in there. Did you see the citation tags I added? And what do they go for, the referenced stuff? Gold, honestly, any Ideas? --Domer48 18:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Domer, it would be helpful if you stated who "they" are so that those you are accusing can respond and resolve the matter. Am I one of "them"? --sony-youthpléigh 20:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for checkuser

Domer, you're getting taking this the wrong way. 1. I moved you comments to the talk page because they are not a request for checkuser but talk about the request. 2. I don't have no ill intent with the request - both you and I know it will show that Pappin76 is not you, I just want to know who it is. 3. I think Marks requests is without foundation, but so what if he does ask for it - again, you and I know it will show that Sarah is not you!

Finally, please stop posting comments such as "This is all part of a campaign of Harassment" in response to my post. I am not harassing you. Why on earth would I harass you? --sony-youthpléigh 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

conscientious editors

Have you had any problems with me?Aatomic1 21:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did I know that was going to happen [57]--Domer48 21:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham pub bombings

Because my comments have been removed does not mean I have not made them.

From WP:NOT Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.

I don’t know any of them; they are not my relatives and they are not the subject of encyclopedia articles. I ain’t honouring them. An unbiased editor would also remove my edits on Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and Welsh Guards. Aatomic1 11:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham pub bombings

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Birmingham pub bombings. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

Kind regards,
Anthøny (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:AGK#Birmingham bombing block

I've replied to your post (link, above) at my talk page; your continued output there is requested ~ Anthøny (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I warned you, Domer, that another comment like the one I saw before, and you would be blocked. I'm afraid that I have been forced to block you for 24 hours for the uncivil comments you made on my talk page. If you wish to contest it, you can place {{unblock}} on your talk page with the reason you should be unblocked. I try to be a patient man, you have exhausted mine. SirFozzie 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No your alright I’ll sit out the block! First of my posts you’ve responded to!
How was the block Domer, relaxing? MarkThomas 13:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't respond to this Domer, Mark has earned a 24 hour block of his very own for this and other comments. SirFozzie 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mark's comment was goading and highly inflammatory. I have just issued him with his final warning. - Alison ☺ 15:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your post

Hello; thank you for your post on my Talk page. It seems more for Rockpocket's benefit than mine.

I have no objection to your posting on my Talk page, but please could you reformat your post, indenting and italicising it, and making sure that the links (including signature links) are carried over. I'd be grateful if you could also please add a link to the original discussion.

You might also like to have a look at this post of mine here, and I hope that you might agree to it as a way forward.--Major Bonkers (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and thank you for tidying up your post. You'll see that I've marked the issue as 'resolved'; I've made my point, and I don't think that there's much to be gained by raking over past problems. If people are stupid enough to try to game the system, that's a matter for them: as far as I am concerned, they are wasting time - theirs and ours - on inconsequential arguments that have no applicability in real life. See also here.
Please can I draw your attention to the proposal that I have made on Rockpocket's Talk page, here. If you want to add any refinements, be my guest. I'd dearly like someone from the Irish nationalist 'side' to lead and support a move to end this childish name-calling which is a huge and wasteful disruption of our time and energy.--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Poster_Turf_Lodge.JPG

I have tagged Image:Poster_Turf_Lodge.JPG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Rationale for the image. I'm in the process of obtaining more. --Domer48 13:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Emma_Groves.JPG

I have tagged Image:Emma_Groves.JPG as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Rationale for the image. I'm in the process of obtaining more. --Domer48 13:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sons Of Eein Derek Warfield.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sons Of Eein Derek Warfield.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]