User talk:Domer48/Archive 2Re:The spirit of 3rrYes, I'd say that's fairly well against the spirit of 3RR, and is definitely edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
SegiI would like to address the Segi block here, so as not to deflect from the real purpose of the RfC. Admin, John provided the diff’s that they considered made up the breach of the three reverts. They are as follows:
As can be seen, the first one is unrelated to the others. Now, as can be seen from the page history, R. fiend et el, had no history or knowledge of this article until I began editing it. They had started edit warring on the Kevin Barry article, which I had just completely referenced, and followed me then to Segi. Now if the above diff’s are seen with this background, they do take on a different aspect. I did use the talk page at all times, and the edit summaries were very clear. It can be argued that I did not breach the 3rr rule, but broke the spirit of it. But if we are all honest about it, that was not the reason for the block. I was given no warning, no report was made, and blocked by an Admin who had a COI, and refused to comment on his actions. Now I did place two reports for 3 rr against R.fiend, and the results were not particularly satisfying when you bear in mind the above experience, here and here. I my self was then blocked for breaching the spirit of the 3 rr here. You can possibly imagine how I felt when I read “Since the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts” and “since you only recently were blocked for a similar offence.” based on my above experiance. The block on Segi in my opinion was wrong, and it did contribute to the subsequent block. --Domer48 (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC) I contacted the admin who blocked me on the second one here, and asked them to review the conduct of R.fiend for the 30 Dec. There reply is just above the Segi section, needless to say I did not file a report. I made another report on the Admin's page, but decided to leave it at that. --Domer48 (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Re: Roger CasementThanks. I should have done that, but got distracted. I am sick of all this untoward speculation about a dead man's sexuality. Truly, are we to believe that a Unionist politician from the north is a reliable source on the personal life of a dead Irish rebel? What a load of bollocks! Thanks for your note. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
famine/hunger pageHi. I just edited over your revert on the famine/hunger page. I think my edit addresses the concerns expressed by the previous edit without taking a position either way. have a look. Hughsheehy (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Note regarding User:R. fiend's RFCPlease note, I have acted on the consensus I have seen on the main RfC page, and opened a Request for Arbitration. You may add (brief, 500 words or less) statements Here. Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Peadar Clancy ArticleGood article Domer I see you have been stalked on it already one of your admirers is on it with tags after 4 mins that must be a record what exactly needs to be cleaned up? BigDunc (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:1916-1921 club 030.jpgThanks for uploading Image:1916-1921 club 030.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Wheres you dignity Timothy? How unedifying!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Connor CluneFrom reading the book The Squad, I get the impression that he wasn't a Volunteer, he only went along to the hotel were he was arrested with Peadar Clancy, and was waiting in another part of the Hotel whilst the meeting was ongoing, also Collins later refered to Two Soldiers of Ireland killed not three, so it would appear he was just a friend of Clancy, I will see if I can find anything else on him.--Padraig (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I hear what your saying about Collins refering to two Volunteers, but remember Clune got buried in his home county, Clancy and McKee were buried together. What about what I was thinking, that he was innocent in the sence that he had no part in the planning behind the cairo gang? Now I know at the moment I can not reference it and probably won't but that would explaine the differences of opinion? --Domer48 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
He was a Volunteer, see Image:Commemorative plaque Dublin Castle.JPG, the NGA have him listed.--Padraig (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I see that I may have misjudged you; if so, I apologise. Alice✉ 08:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC) InterrogationYour chief interrogator now wants to censor replys on her talk page regarding yourself. Open and fair debate doesn't seem to be on her agenda. Have a read and see what you think. BigDunc (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just for the time being, the diff's which suggest I have a WP:COI would clear the air a bit. Alice, when you get to know me a bit more, you will quickly see that I do not need any support from anyone, I can do just fine on my own. A quick look at some article talk pages will show you that. By the way your holy trinity of editors would be included in those “POV pushers” you mention above. --Domer48 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Alice, the diff's you provided were on my civility, that has nothing to do with WP:COI. What I would like is diff's which you consider or suggest WP:COI. Please dredge up old edits, if they suggest WP:COI, because once that bug bear is put to rest, we can realy move on. What I have learned though, is that there can be a lot of accusations, but no substance to them, that is why on wiki we insist on diff's to support such claims. --Domer48 (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Alice how can I be expected to answer pertinent questions, if I do not know what prompted them. You do keep prompting me, and have said "if [I] answer some simple questions unequivocally, it won't be necessary to dredge up old edits." What edits? You have raised the issue of WP:COI in relation to my edits. I have asked you to provide diff's which illustrate or support your contension, and therefore allow my to address your concerns. In the absence of diff's, what are you asking me to respond to, an unsupported accusation? For me, civility is a big deal, because I have undermined my own case against those who use personal attacks against me (inclunding unfounded accusations), in the absence of WP:V and WP:RS to support their editing of the referenced information I provide. Could you please provide diff's which you consider unequivocally show a WP:COI or withdraw the accusation? Now you either clear the "air of unsubstantiated allegation" or you "neglected/refused to answer pertinent questions" that being, provide the diff's which support your allegation. One other question though, why have I being singled out and asked to "answer some simple questions unequivocally?" Have you asked the same of your holy trinity, or do you consider they have no questions to answer in relation to "a clever agenda of bias?" --Domer48 (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Domer hope you don't mind you jumping in here, Alice fistly have you any evidence that Domer has a COI in his editing of certain articles, that is a very serious allegation many editors including myself edit Irish related article because that is our area of interest. I would agree that Domer is a stickler for facts and will challenge small detail or points in article text, but that is to the benefit of the article, as that is what improves articles by ensuring that information is supported by WP:RS and not the opinion of individual editors summerising sources to suit their POV, by claiming that a source supports what they have written, when in fact it dosen't, which is quite common on WP.--Padraig (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Having made an accusation of WP:COI, they now need one to two weeks to find the evidence to support the claim. Not only that, but want me to defend myself against their accusation, despite not having provided any evidence. It's like this, do you have anything to say before sentence is pronounced, oh and by the way, we will have the trial as soon as your found guilty. We are not going to bother with any of that evidence nonsence, because three "POV warriors" I know say it is so. --Domer48 (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC) I feel I have to come in here. My impression is that Alice has completely misunderstood WP:COI. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. "Interests" here clearly means "advantage, benefit or profit, especially financial" (Chambers) and not simply being interested in something, otherwise the only articles any of us would be able to edit would be ones that bore the **** out of us! As an Irishman I can say that many, many people have views similar to Domer48; to respond to such views with "[Q1) Are you affiliated to any political party or movement and do you have close connections with a book, magazine or newspaper publisher?" is simply not reasonable - it assumes that having a particular POV makes you a suspect of some sort. Apart from anything else, there is no political party that stands to gain advantage benefit or profit from any article relating to 1848, 1916 or 1920, any more than membership of the Republican Party in the United States would be an "interest" as regards editing Theodore Roosevelt. I'm also uncertain what kind of lofty position you have in WP that you can say things like "either the air of unsubstantiated allegation will have cleared or you will have neglected/refused to answer pertinent questions." Perhaps you would to better to clear up the question of why Domer48, rather than any other editor of any other article, is to be subject to this "interrogation". Finally, your assertion that "for me, civility is no big deal" is frankly disturbing. Civility should be of paramount importance to us all. Domer has admitted to being uncivil in the past and instead of respecting him for that a number of editors, including yourself, have behaved with increasing hostility towards him. TBH, I thaink that if you simply reverted to your original apology, and left it at that, everybody would be better off. Scolaire (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Scolaire thanks for the post on my talk page, regardless of were a thank you got me last time. I'm not going to edit on the Abstentionism article at the momeent as I misunderstood what it was about. I did not know it is really about abstentionism since 1918, as practised and preached. Dunc and Pádraig thanks also, Thanks again, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC) I put a proposal for a move on the talk page, it we get a consensus then the move can be made.--Padraig (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Redmond referencingHi, so I can follow your request which I do not quite follow, his story is straight forward Irish history. I can put <Paul Bew, Redmond, John Edward (1856-1918), Oxford Dictionary (2004-5)> at the end of each line, paragraph and section, if this is what is needed, his story more or less follows Bew's biography ? Thanks for your support, Greetings Osioni (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The Hobson Article had nothing in the way of referencing really. I have started to do some now though. If you read the rational for it on the talk page it should make it clear for you. I notice you are using the same reference style I used to use. It was suggest to me here that I change it to the same style as that on the Hobson Article. While I consider the style we are using is ok, I did take the suggestion on board, and accepted the logic of it. --Domer48 (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Removing Catholic CategoryCan you point me to the discussion where it was decided that people would be categorized only by things that made them notable, as opposed to things that they are? You are removing categories based on that assumption, so I am assuming a community decision was made. Please point me to it. Thanks. --David Shankbone 22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Consider myself slapped. I never read the references or links. All I was looking for when I read the articles was weather religion played any part in what made them notable. All of the bio-Articles on this cat are now notable for their religion, and that is they way it should be. --Domer48 (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
RiverHockey why don't you lend a hand, and make a start on the Irish Anglicans, methodists, etc? If their religion did not make them notable remove them. Only some of the Cat's were deleted, and some are being abused, or not used properly. There are people who became notable because of their religion, or religion played a part in their notability, therefore some Cat's have a valid purpose. If editors object to you removing the Cat's from articles, open a discussion on the article talk page, and invite me to join the discussion. --Domer48 (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Edit-warring IPHey Domer. I have been keeping an eye on the articles favored by the IP we discussed here. The semi-protection has expired on M62 coach bombing and the IP seems to have found better things to amuse himself with that Continuity Irish Republican Army. I'm hesitant to semi-protect either for a significant period of time, but short protections and IP blocks may do the trick when he comes back for more. I'll try and keep watching them as much as possible, but I'm also planning to take a bit of a periodic wiki-break this month, since things have gotten a bit too stressful recently. If this starts up again and I am not around, please refer another admin to this conversation and, hopefully, they will block and/or protect quickly. That should have a chilling effect on their disruption. Rockpocket 08:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC) ThanksThank you for your comments. --MJB (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Feel free to delete this Another editor has added the Image:1916-1921 club 030.jpg listed for deletionAn image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1916-1921 club 030.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Undeath (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Stop it pleaseCats are grouped by "Mac", regardless of whether the original surname is "Mc". One Night In Hackney303 21:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
If thats the case why don't they do it right then i.e. MacNamee LoL --Domer48 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Domer, you might take a peek at some Unionist edit-warring and breaching of 3RR on this page and give me your opinion? Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Of Bans and FlagsHi Domer. Thanks for you comments on the subject of bans, you are one of the few people who appear to be focusing an the issue, rather than the personalities. Not surprisingly, everyone else ignored you suggestion and got back to the sniping. At the moment there are a few relevant sentences at WP:BAN:
These appear to leave a grey area, primarily as to when then re-adding good material of a banned editor becomes "proxying." My interpretation is that anything that would be considered a minor edit by a banned editor that is also an improvement (like a typo or grammar fix) should probably be left, or if it is reverted could be changed back without fear of proxying. However, anything that is considered a major edit by a banned editor, (the addition of subtraction of substantive content) should be reverted without prejudice and not re-reverted, even if it could be considered to be an improvement. The exception to this is if reverting would re-introduce WP:BLP or other such core issues. Perhaps the policy could be worded better to reflect this. Sadly though, I think that is secondary to point scoring in the minds of many participants in the debate. I also think re-igniting the Vk debate is a huge energy sink, that distracts from more important issues, such as ongoing problems regarding the flag issue. I must admit that I am not really familiar with the extensive background. However, as usual, there appears to be two very different sides to the same story. I hesitate to get too involved, but if no-one else is willing to help, I'll offer my assistance. I have already warned Astrotrain that he is close to being put on probation and challenged him to come up with some compromise proposals instead of edit-warring. Adding flags to articles for the sake of it offer little encyclopaedic value, but there may be some articles where compromise would be suitable. I'm hoping Astrotrain is smart enough to distinguish between these with his suggestions. Perhaps you could encourage other to view these proposals with fresh eyes and see if there is some common ground? Rockpocket 17:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You've made some astute observations here and you are, in my opinion, on the money with most of them. The problems over the Troubles occurred on two major levels. There are those who know how to play the "game", but are involved in problematic editing and those who were involved in anything but subtle problematic editing. The latter group have largely been dealt with, which should permit us to know focus on the former (who may or may not actually be salvageable as editors). However, the lingering arguments over VK and DL are distracting from that. I haven't been shy about my insistence that the only way we can make this work is to root out the troublemakers and then focus our attentions on the content without the background noise of consistent incivility. We are close to that point. But compromise is the key, Astrotrain et al have to appreciate that flagcruft, for the sake of it, is not helpful and must focus solely on articles where flags are relevant. Once that happens we have to find some way or representing those flags in a manner that is informative and neutral. Maybe that is already happening, or maybe there is scope for change, I'm not yet sure. I expect, as is usually the case, there is a middle ground to be found, its simply a case of identifying those editors who are reasonable enough to appreciate that and marginalizing those that don't. Rockpocket 19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Padraig your right in what your saying, and I have said as much above. At this stage Astrotrain is just taking the piss out of all of us. We agreed on the last discussion that you would represent the views of one side of the banner debate, and you more than represented the views. Regardless of the points you made, Astrotrain ignored the discussion and carried on regardless. Now I would not consider it to be at all fair to expect you to have to go through it all again. I for one will not be asking as the result will be the same, and you are right, he will not or cannot provide RS to support his claims, and will only continue to edit war in any case. That is what must and needs to be addressed. --Domer48 (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC) LubyGood work on this article Domer.BigDunc (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
BooksGot them cheers. Three Men in a Helicopter coming later.... One Night In Hackney303 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
MacBride/McBrideDomer, I doubt a source could ever be found for that misspelling of MacBride. If memory serves correctly, and I would have to go back through the history, I believe there were two articles on MacBride, one under each version of the name. I believe "McBride" came first, and then an article was created with the correct spelling. I know Sean MacBride had a similar story. So, the "McBride" note was stuck in at the beginning to clear up any misunderstandings. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
DYK for Thomas Clarke LubyWell done, and Happy St Patrick's Day! BencherliteTalk 09:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't know how it happened, but thanks anyway. --Domer48 (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The nomination of the article was by PFHLai (talk · contribs), who has a habit of finding good new articles to get a spot on the main page. A passing admin (cough) then chose a selection of nominations, including a few particularly appropriate ones for the day, and put them up on the main page for their 6 hours of glory! BencherliteTalk 12:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well done domer-you have kept the home fires burning brightly on subjects and topics that are both important and more importantly correct for a year now..many hours with your head in the books and late nites sitting contently at your ríomhaire keeping information in the right place..Maith an fír....le meas Breen32 (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Thanks like I said, the unexpected part was what made it good. --Domer48 (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC) I wish I had seen this sooner, but better a late congratulations than none at all. Well done! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You Got MailSent you an email. BigDunc (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC) LinkCould you forward that link we discussed in our previous correspondence thanks. BigDunc (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC) GahI just looked at the total edits to the article, that'll teach me not to edit in the middle of the night! One Night In Hackney303 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Tiocfaidh ár láSorry! I should have said that on your talk page instead of the AfD page. I did it without thinking. If you change your comment you can remove mine. Scolaire (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have supported this suggestion, and put forward another example in its place. Now I will look very hard on you if you pop up with an article on “A Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people.” LOL, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Just had a look, I should have known (or maybe I did). Would you like to look this over, comments or opinions welcome. What other ideas could I give people:) LOL. --Domer48 (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Not bad for an Englishman eh?"ONIH has displayed a very sharp and cognisant understanding of Republican related articles" ;) One Night In Hackney303 20:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Charles KickhamNice work on the expansion of Charles Kickham. Another fenian with a decent article. I have to confess I am not a great fan of block-quotes, and I think his account of 1848 in Mullinahone might be lost without any great harm to the article. Otherwise it's a very nice job. Leaves me wondering when the article on the Confederation Club is going to be written. Scolaire (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
lol Vandalism - don’t make me laugh your an IRA supporterlol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.4.199 (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC) BlockquotesI did what you asked on the template talk page and checked out your recent edits. I want to try to explain what my problem is with long quotes. People read an encyclopedia because they want to be told in a concise way what happened, what was done and what was said. Forcing them to read large tracts of text defeats the whole purpose. What it important or exciting to the editor who put it in is "just another long boring speech" to the reader. And, of course, any reader who wants to read the whole thing can be pointed to Wikisource. I haven't liked the insertion of long quotes on any of the articles they've appeared in recently, and to be honest, I don't remember anybody else coming on the talk pages to say "I think they're really good." A short summary of the text with, if necessary, a very short quote from it will make for a far better article. Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll giving them the option to decide, because if I do it, it just allows then the oppertunity to bitch and moan. If they refuse the oppertunity, well I'm more than willing to have a go. I'm a bit tied up on the O'Leary article, and expanding the Stephens one a bit more. Once I have that out of the way, I will focus on the changes. If they don't want any of it, their going to have a tough time justifying it. I think you know what will happen when I attempt to do it? --Domer48 (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Ulster Defence RegimentI note your comment regarding the inclusion of extra material on collusion. You feel the item wasn't agreed. May I draw your attention to the page history and the fact that it was SilkTork, the third party editor, who included this information. As far as all are concerned and I believe this includes ONIH, the article is now balanced and verified and requires no further major editing with the exception of verifiable new information. I have undid the changes and hope you will accept that, subject to further discussion? GDD1000 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Template:IrishRAny thoughts on my test version, as explained at Template_talk:IrishR#Green_border? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC) IRAPlease do tell why this line: "taking responsibility for IRA operations in the six counties of Northern Ireland and also County Donegal" is permissible to describe the geographical limitations of the so-called "Northern Command" whilst in the body of the text but cannot describe the vague term "north of Ireland" in the first line? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration RequestPlease be aware that a request for arbitration has been made with regards to the Ulster Defence Regiment page. You may file your comments at [1] GDD1000 (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Care to commenthere Giano (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Tim Pat Coogan paragraph in History of the Orange InstitutionHi Domer, I've just noticed that you put the Tim Pat Coogan paragraph back into the Orange Order history page, in a place which was, in my opinion, even more irrelevant than where I deleted it from. The section that you put it in dealt with the prehistory of the Order - William of Orange, Battle of the Boyne etc, so I am totally unable to understand how a paragraph on the Order's benevolent activities, influence on America etc fits in there. In general the paragraph seems to be 'what Coogan says about the Orange Order' rather than any attempt to fit in with the existing structure of the page. If you think it is important information then I have no problem with you re-inserting the facts, as long as they are in relevant and appropriate places. Simply reinserting the paragraph in random places does nothing to improve the page. I know we've had issues with this paragraph before, and I want to reiterate that if you want the information on the page, I don't have a problem with that, I just ask that you work it into the existing article rather than just dumping it in there. --Helenalex (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC) Domer, do you have the Kevin Barry article on your watch list? I could use some help over there, as I am already at 3RR, and an anon keeps insisting on adding the age of Pvt. Washington, without reference. It seems to me that we dealt with this sometime back and the consensus was to keep his age out of the article. Do you have any recollection of this? Thanks for your time and efforts. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Tag-teaming on User talk:David LauderOk, what you were doing there was disruptive in the extreme. Tag-teaming with Big Dunc to edit-war with Bonkers over a sock tag? Please don't do that again or you'll be just as likely to get blocked for disruption and edit-warring - Alison ❤ 22:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Ulster Defence Regiment-Heads UpCan I make you aware that I have posted on the talk page for the Ulster Defence Regiment that I have made some sweeping changes to the entire article at my work page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GDD1000/UDR. I would appreciate your looking in, as you have been involved in the dialogue on this article. My intention has been to clean up the article, remove repetition and add new information. I believe there may be some syntax errors in the references and I would appreciate help or advice on that. Similarly I am willing to discuss anything you believe is contentious. I am repeating this request on BigDunc's talk page.GDD1000 (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Moving Article without agreementDomer, pl check Great Britain and Ireland asap; some e-warriors are trying to merge it despite an active discussion which is not concluded. Sarah777 (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Corporals killings.JPGThanks for uploading Image:Corporals killings.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
UDRDomer we were doing quite well there until just a few minutes ago. I'm certainly not wanting to get into a war of words over who was right and who was wrong in the Ulster situation. IMO we have to concentrate on the bare historic facts as far as this article is concerned. I'm sure we can agree that the UDR and IRA were enemies but there are plenty of pages on Wikipedia about the IRA. I'm also sure we can make the feelings of both communities clear in the article. Please don't let personal sympathies stand in the way of us discussing this article in a clear and rational fashion. That's a plea.GDD1000 (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Possibly unfree Image:Free the POW's Mural Belfast.JPGAn image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Free the POW's Mural Belfast.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 07:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC) --Kelly hi! 07:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Brian KeenanI don't understand this edit. IMOS?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Here you go, on links. --Domer48 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
UDRHi Domer. What was this about? --John (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
one sentence.--Domer48 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Regimental HistoryI have those pages scanned and ready to go. I need an e-mail address though. Could you reply to my internal e-mail to you please?GDD1000 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Great Irish FamineDomer, I'm sorry, but I've got to tell you that you're fairly close to a page ban on Great Irish Famine. All you've been doing is revert, revert, revert. Please refrain from making reverts to the article for the time being. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Angusmclellan you will of course show good cause, and it would be helpful to indicate what I'm actually doing wrong? Have I breached any of our policies or guidlines? Have I not discussed all the changes? --Domer48 (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
CommentsDomer48, I need to apologise to you for deleting your recent comments from my talk page. I was doing two or three things at once and also was carrying on two other WP conversations at the same time, and for some reason I thought your comments there were made by User:BigDunc, who I was talking with on a different page. (Must be the capital "D" in the name or something...) Your comment there was almost identical to one the other user had just made to me seconds before elsewhere, and I thought he was just copying his message onto my talk page so I knew about it, so I deleted it b/c I was fine to have the conversation where it was ongoing elsewhere. (If that makes sense ... — if not, just please accept my apology for deleting your comment; it wasn't intended to be a rejection of you or your comments, which I can understand it may have appeared to be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Third opinionA user requested a third opinion, but referenced this page. Where is the dispute, and can a 3O help? --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem ;) --Domer48 (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Philip, please stop changing the policyYou wrote in the history of WP:V "Philip, please stop changing the policy, "Putting back the seperation of paragraphs" did not mention removing text"[2] Please explain which word you think I removed with this edit and this comment "Putting back the seperation of paragraphs" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC) ETA logo copyvioDomer, I think this is the second time you say that the image NoETA.jpg doesn't respect copyright policies, or that it violates any copyright. I've opened a section in the image's talk page, so I kindly ask you to explain there in detail why do you think that. ETA's logo doesn't have any copyright, as I try to explain in there. Thank you, Escorial82 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC) The Great Hunger: the "favourite hate" name pollYou participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC) BlockedYou're blocked for 31 hours, or until you apologise unreservedly for repeatedly calling Colin4C (talk · contribs) a liar, whichever is the lesser. No warnings? You know well enough what is and isn't acceptable, and Scolaire and Wotapalaver had already pointed out that this is not acceptable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
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: Since blocks are preventative not punitive I refuse to apologise for anything said, but I will not use those particular words in future therefore I should be unblocked forthwith. Domer48 (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Decline reason: Blocks are preventative and not punitive but Angus's request was a reasonable one and by declining it you don't leave me with the impression that you've internalized his advice to you. Take all the time you need to do so, but I'm afraid I don't think an unblock is merited. Sorry. — John (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 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. No offence John, but you're hardly impartial are you? Domer48 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
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: As a matter of principle, I'm not apologising for speaking the truth. As I pledge to make no comments about any other editor for the duration of the block, the block is now rendering solely punitive and therefore a breach of the blocking policy for me to remain blocked. Domer48 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Decline reason: As a matter of principle. Consider it educational, not punitive. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 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.
Any Admin watching this are condoning it with their silence, and pretending they did not see it. “Consider it educational, not punitive.” Have we just set a precedent here for being punitive, or petty? It is not gratifying but informative to see how the rules can be twisted and blatantly circumvented to make a point. I don’t feel the need to hold contempt for it, I simply acknowledge it exists. John please don’t post on my page, as you lack the wherewithal to be even amusingly petty. I have the choice of lying and saying I apologise unreservedly, or maintaining my self-respect, an easy choice. Wrong place for sackcloth and ashes folks, and I come out of it displaying more integrity coupled with a sense of humour. If given the choice, I would have given up my seat for Rosa Parks. --Domer48 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
So keeping someone block to teach them a lesson is to be incorporated into the blocking policy then is it. You said you would unblock me but it would not have consensus? Policy overrides consensus even I know that. You simply lacked the will, or the conviction of your own opinions. You also know this arbitration enforcement was a valid complaint and you again sat on your hands. Now one admin thought the Mentors should act on the complaint, and so they did. . One points to something not even in the complaint at all. In fact ignored the complaint altogether. Why add something that’s not relevant to the discussion I wonder? Another admin who normally deals with ArbCom enforcement then suggests that the mentors should act on the complaint, and we get this little pearl of wisdom from another of the mentors. What’s the lesson here Rock, file a report and get blocked? Now policy trumps consensus. Editors who deliberately add hoax references to support their own opinion is in breach of policy WP:V, present it is such a way to become misleading WP:NPOV and refuse to support their WP:OR when challenged. I will not apologise for that. Consensus among editors to keep unreferenced opinion which breach our policies is overridden by those policies. I did not misrepresent you at all. You sit on your hands and allow it. Don’t come on my talk page making excuses for your lack of principle in relation to the selective application of policies. So Gordon did not teach me a lesson. Neither did Angus and neither did Ryan but I hope you learned something. Apply the policies in a clear and consistant way and I'm a productive editor. Offer advice and suggestions, and maybe even deal with the cause of the problems in place of shaking a stick at the results or tackle the cause, not just give advice on how to do tackle it and I'm a productive editor. Being able to tell fellow admins that they are becoming part of the problem and not the solution and you become a productive admin.--Domer48 (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey save the unblock! I'll do the 31, let gordon have his moment. The unblock should not have been refused to teach an editor a lesson. --Domer48 (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
POV categoriesIf [Category:State terrorism in the United Kingdom] is a POV category, does the same apply to [Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom]? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC) UnblockedI have unblocked you, Domer, on the understanding that you remain civil in future, particularly in reference to stating your opinion of other editors as facts. " What X states currently (dif) does not appear consistent with what they said previously (diff)" is a civil way of making the same point that got you blocked. It also provides ample opportunity for the person to clarify any misunderstanding that could resolve the inconsistency. Angus tells me that he is considering how, within the remit of the ArbCom remedy, how we should resolve these WP:V-interpretation related incidents. I don't have an answer for you myself, but I do know that cool, calm discussion is infinitely more likely to resolve them that name calling. I hope you, and the other editors that you were discussing the issues with, will read my plea on the talk page and take it seriously, because your knowledge on the Famine is second to none. Thanks. Rockpocket 23:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Colin's responses:
Check the history of Verifiability for yourself, the part about direct quotes from books being produced on request was in there for the duration of the discussion, and it was not a passage I originally added. How many "ample opportunities" did Colin4C have to produce the quote, or otherwise resolve the inconsistency? Much has been made of the word "infamous", which neglects that "Emigration reached new heights" is still an outstanding issue. Dealing with "infamous", apparently it is ok for an editor to "summarise" and add POV terms which do not appear in the original text. I shall use a different example for the sake of argument, and someone who is dead to avoid any BLP problems. If I have a book and there are five pages talking about the activities of Oliver Cromwell in Ireland, is it ok to summarise my opinion of the content of those five pages and describe him as a "tyrant" in the article despite that word not appearing in the original text? Surely the issue is not whether another source could be found that describes Cromwell as a "tyrant", but whether the source I have said describes him as a "tyrant" actually does so? Domer48 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Sadly you seem to have the same problem with sourcing that other editors have, you try and match a source to an existing sentence rather than matching the sentence to the source. From what I can see, the source you have provided would source "Emigration was higher than in 1846", but not "Emigration reached new heights". Unless of course the word "unique" is a paraphrase for "new heights"? Domer48 (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Pronoun ProblemYou have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Topic ban: Please read!Please be aware that the mentors appointed by the arbitration committee to oversee The Great Hunger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have determined that you shall be banned for one month from editing the article and its talk page, and for one further month from editing the article only, as noted here. The talk page ban will expire at 12:00 UTC on 23 July 2008 and the article ban at 12:00 CET on 23 August 2008. Please do observer this editing restriction. Failure to do so may result in you being blocked. If you have any questions, please let me know or leave a note here. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Please provide evidence of "good cause", given that I currently feel I am being punished for past "crimes" when I have already improved my behaviour following certain incidents. Domer48 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I don’t believe that answers my question. There is one diff since my block? --Domer48 (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Was this not also unrelated and yet you provided this comment here. Now Ryan says they are related here. Could you explain? --Domer48 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the above table sheds a new light on the topic. Colin4C appears to be in the lead in the editing/revert field, almost twice as active as Dormer48. 93.107.67.124 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
How many reverts have there been since I was "asked" to refrain from reverting on 29 May? Put another way, having been asked to refrain on the 29 May, did I in fact do as requested? Yes or no? --Domer48 (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
CU should be able to tell (1)Operating System, (2)Browser, (3)Screen resolution, at least. Mine are, (1)Windows XP, (2)MSIE 7.0, (3)1024x768. If any of your data is different from mine, then CU would immediately know. Wikipedia is doing you a great dis-service if they ignore your CU request. Sorry if I have caused you any problems, it was not my intention. Admins should take note. There is most probably a cookie too that the Wikipedia CU can trace. Really they cannot ignore your request, unless there is something more subtle going on that's not apparent at the moment. Maybe try a different CU, as according to Ryan's page, he nominated Alison for adminship. He shouldn't have interfered with the CU request.93.107.78.102 (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry about the rather weak exoneration above from the CU page, but it's something that I have utterly no control over. What should have been said is, "there is absolutely not a shred of evidence to link the two editors". Sadly now it seems, a bit like Scottish Law, the CU has bestowed the "not proven" verdict on your "case". And I must add, there was not a shred of evidence for Ryan to make the accusation in the first instance, and that should be emphasised. 93.107.78.102 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Cheers!Good to see you back and editing, Domer! As my priest once told me "Non illegitimus carborundum." I think I remembered the Latin correctly. Keep up the good work. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC) BTW DomerA certain banned user on WR has pretty much owned up to being our mysterious cell phone IP addy. Should I let GH know of your appreciation for getting you into this situation? SirFozzie (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I fully apologise Domer - I was wrong to ever suggest you were using an IP to evade your ban. It's obvious who it was now - hope you can forgive me sir. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that Fozz, it cleared the air. Alison as usual you have gone beyond what is considered normal in your efforts to help and assist an editor. You were under no obligation to help and you did and you can't ask for more than that. Am I pissed off about the block and then the page ban, of course I am. I've been around long enough to know shit happens. Will it stop me from editing on wiki, please get real. I don't know were the idea sprang from that I was leaving, but that is probably wishful thinking. In the past I have been at the bad end of Banned editors and their socks on the Article and I came through it. I will take your advice Rock, and there is a lot of truth in it and I accept that. I will also accept Ryan's apology (through my teeth of course) because that is the way it is and pettiness is not my strong suite. Now as to GH, could you do me a favour, and go fuck yourself! I can slag editors of to beat the band, but it is never personal. You have a well polished chip on your shoulder and you need to get over yourself. Now why don't you leave Alison the fuck alone, because while I can on occasion curse her from a hight, I still think she is a decent skin, and one of the best admin's on the site. On a lighter note, Sarah, I always get a buzz when your name appears on my talk page. ;-) --Domer48 (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The defendant --Domer48 (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
NPOV on Corporals' KillingI'll not revert your reversion r.e. the alleged POV but I have to say that I cannot see any consensus on this issue present on the talk page, far from it in fact. That said, I am sure that you are scrupulous to present non-British sources as being POV too so it won't inject any bias into the articles you edit. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC) User boxThanks for lining up the boxes. Of course it's ok. I don't know how you did it, as I am not only vision-impaired, but very, very HTML/programming challenged. I suppose I'm learning. I like copy and paste programming best. I use Jaws for Windows, and it doesn't display things as they are normally shown, which makes editing a trick. Doesn't do pictures either, I'm afraid. Trying to look at the screen is not good for me, so I avoid it. Love your user page, btw, it has inspired me to write, and I don't know if that's a good thing, but it is definitely a fact. Ruairí Óg the Rogue (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC) POV categories 2Hi. I was wondering, seeing as you described [Category:State terrorism in the United Kingdom] as a POV category, ought the same apply to [Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom]? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Do you have an opinion on the matter? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC) StalkerThank you, sir, for reverting the edits of my stalker. He has really become a pain in my backside. I hope you are well. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into an edit war with you but my edit summery quite clearly states that Girvan confirms they were murders because that what they were arrested for, charged with and convicted for. So why change it when there is a perfectly good reference? Cheers ww2censor (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Section 24 is quite clear. The copyright status expires "70 years after the date of the author". Thus, this image is still copyrighted because Whelan died in 1956. I have changed the license accordingly. Please add a fair use rationale permitting its use on the subject's page, Mark F. Ryan. -- Robocoder (t|c) 13:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mark Ryan Fenian.jpgThank you for uploading Image:Mark Ryan Fenian.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by an adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Speedy deletion of Image:Mark Ryan Fenian.jpgA tag has been placed on Image:Mark Ryan Fenian.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free image with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the image can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding The IP you reported for SOCK, he keeps deleting the comment on his talk page. Is this a violation of anything? ——Mr. E. Sánchez Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
No worries a chara, regards --Domer48'fenian' 19:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Personal attack?[19]: May I ask how "Also Pte Matthew Whitehead was may have been only seventeen" is a personal attack? (Yes, some of what you removed was appropriate to remove, but could you take a look and restore what was not?) - Jmabel | Talk 21:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Mark F. RyanSomeone tagged and removed the image to Mark F. Ryan. If you have the image saved you can restore it, it is a mural by Leo Whelan and should be okay to post if properly cited. Thanks. -RiverHockey (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC) HeyHey Boss, Mark from the shop here The page with all the documentaries is here: [20] --MarkyMarkDCU (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC) 3RRYou seem to be intent on starting an edit war you are well aware of the rule if you continue you will be reported and blocked. BigDuncTalk 19:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Under normal circumstances 3RR acts as a deterrent, but it depends on how and who applies it. Some suggest 3RR is an electric fence, others, well: 1 August 3RR report (no action) 13 August 3RR report (final warned) 14 August 3RR report (page-protected) Notice how on the 13 August report I’m told that no current warning was given? That’s strange since no current warning is needed, only for the editor to be aware of the rule? Now the accusation is made that I was tag-teaming the editor, but I had not edited this article since the 24 July? Despite the final warning, however, they still don’t get blocked. Well they were, but then they were unblocked because the blocking admin did not see the entire situation?. Which was? Now what are editors having to deal with, well for example on newspapers: now we can’t use this, despite it being well true? (edit summary) they want to word it their way? Darn papers again? I used both an English and Irish paper. Now some papers are fine, the Belfast Telegraph for example And even Republican one, if just to make a point 83-86, 93-96, I did not add any of them. For riveting discussions here is a good example. And as for reasons to revert here is one. The reason I’ve used this example is, if you have been reading this it will look familiar as they did not like it then either. On sources some must be taken as gospel. Regardless of what anyone says. While other are well, of no consequence. --Domer48'fenian' 12:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC) This article has now been fully protected for a week due to your edit-warring. Please take the matter to the talk page. You've been here long enough to understand how the process work, and edit-warring to get your POV across will not work and will just get you blocked - Alison ❤ 20:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC) To get my POV across. I've been on the talk page, and not a peep at of you. Take it to the Troubles ArbCom? Because your one sided opinion is getting boring. If you make an accusation, try back it up for once. --Domer48'fenian' 20:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Back up your accusation, point to were I'm putting in "MY POV"? I've used that talk page by the book. Not once have I commented on the other editor during the discussions. Dispite the accusations being made left right and center. I have chose to ignore them. I have focused on the edits and the edits only. Now any time your asked a question you run off. There is still outstanding questions you never answered, the last time you accused me of something. So point to the diff or run off again. --Domer48'fenian' 20:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I've ask ANI, see what run around I get now? --Domer48'fenian' 22:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring: Ulster Special Constabulary; third 3rr violation.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. —slakr\ talk / 22:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Oh, dear. Well, I guess that settles that then, Domer. Honestly guys, quit tag-teaming Thunderer (I know you're both at it). That's you also, Dunc. C'mon, and less of the abusive sockery charges. Checkuser clearly states that this guy is not an abusive sockpuppeteer - Alison ❤ 00:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Alison spare me. Tag-teaming! That is one piss poor excuse! Is that really the best you've got? Now I'll raise your Checkuser at ANI when the block expires. You can't back up your accusations when asked, but you can come on here with this crap. Rock, you were doing a good job, keep at it. Use the edit requests. --Domer48'fenian' 07:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
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 opened a sock report here, with cleaar evidence that the editors were one in the same. A Checkuser was carried out and closed by the same Checkuser? Result, "checkuser shows no evidence of abusive sock-puppetry." GDD1000 with a major conflict of interest first started causing major disruption on the Wikipedia article on his former regiment in April. After causing large amounts of disruption with his POV pushing, use of unreliable sources, additions of vast amounts of copyright violations to articles and so on, GDD1000 stop editing in late May. Alison gave this editor a clean start under a new name, and has deceive other editors by allowing them to edit the same article pretending to be a brand new editor. Now the use of the term tag-teamed has been put about quite alot. It's a red-herring, and not one diff to support it. I request to be un-blocked to pursue this matter. Since the block was correct and warranted, I will not for the period of one week edit any article on wiki, confining myself to ANI and following any advice offered. In addition, I will not post to any editors talk page other than my own. Decline reason: No. You edited disruptively, were blocked, now you are requesting an unblock, throwing wild accusations here and there? I'm afraid that unblocking you will lead to further disruption and flamewar. As such, declined. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 10:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC) 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. "Throwing wild accusations" despite no discussion having yet taken place? Your opinion is my unblock will “lead to further disruption and flamewar?” Based on what, your initial accusation? I request to be un-blocked to pursue this matter, confining myself to ANI and following any advice offered. --Domer48'fenian' 10:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
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: Now the use of the term tag-teamed has been put about quite alot. It's a red-herring, and not one diff to support it. I request to be un-blocked to pursue this matter. Since the block was correct and warranted, I will not for the period of one week edit any article on wiki, confining myself to ANI and following any advice offered. In addition, I will not post to any editors talk page other than my own. Since my previous request was declined because of wild accusations, I wish to pursue the matter through the proper channels. Since blocks are preventative, no punitive, I’ve indicated my intension to address my behaviour in a constructive way, in an attempt to remove the cause of contention. Decline reason: This is arrent wikilawyering. You have a history of edit warring and clearly were engaged in the same on this occasion. You muts know that 3RR is a bright line that must not cross. You did, you got blocked. Congratulations. If you have any issues that you want to address you are welcome to do this after your block expires but shortening this block will only encourage you to continue this behaviour that precipitated a general edit war on an article covered by an arbitration committee probation. Instead of casting wild accusations you would be as well to take the time off to consider how you could have handled the situation better. — Spartaz Humbug! 12:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC) 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. You muts know that 3RR is a bright line that must not cross? 1 August 3RR report (no action) 13 August 3RR report (final warned) 14 August 3RR report (page-protected) And then there it is again "casting wild accusations" and arrent wikilawyering? If you read what I said, I've accepted the block and have not asked for anyone for a shortening of it. I've asked for the oppertunity to address this behaviour that precipitated a general edit war. --Domer48'fenian' 12:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
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've accepted the block and I'm not asking for anyone for a shortening of it. I'm asking for the oppertunity to address this behaviour that precipitated a general edit war. I wish to pursue the matter through the proper channels. Since blocks are preventative, no punitive, I’ve indicated my intension to address my behaviour in a constructive way, in an attempt to remove the cause of contention. Decline reason: "I'm not asking for anyone for a shortening of it." Then stop using the unblock template: that's for requesting that a block be lifted. You'll have plenty of chance to edit properly once the block expires. Mangojuicetalk 12:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC) 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. Thanks for that Mango, first one not to make "wild accusations." I'm just sorry I did not make myself clear enough for you. I have now though. --Domer48'fenian' 13:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC) unblock|I request to be un-blocked to address the issues that precipitated a general edit war at ANI. Since the block was correct and warranted, I will not for the period of one week edit any article on wiki, confining myself to ANI and following any advice offered. In addition, I will not post to any editors talk page other than my own. Since blocks are preventative, not punitive I'm making this requesst. I have protected your talk page for 6 days to prevent you further abusing the unblock template. You asked to be unblocked you got the answer. Persistantly making requests that essentially restate the same request is disruptive. I have e-mail enabled so if you want to let me know you will desist I'll unprotect the page. Spartaz Humbug! 13:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Notification:You are being discussed here--Tznkai (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Guys, I checked and this page is currently unprotected, so he should be okay to edit here - Alison ❤ 17:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
=ContinuedNoted, and taken into consideration--Tznkai (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Block 9/30
Unblock requests should include promises to let the sock puppet thing go, and probably promises to restrain yourself to reporting Diffs.--Tznkai (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
An editor with a history of disruptive editing is allowed to take on a new user name and carry on in the same way as before is not right. I will not be cowed into silence by anyone when I know I’m right. Your block is puerile and beneath contempt. Now provide diff’s to back it up, or say nothing. Because you and Alison are standing over this and you know its not true. --Domer48'fenian' 18:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok Alison, I’m going to let it drop right now, not another word on it. All I want is, the next accusation made about me that you demand that it is supported by diff’s. If I’m uncivil to anyone, I will walk away for a month and not edit at all. I will not get into a revert war with anyone on any article. All I ask is that an admin will address the policy issues on the talk pages when a discussion has run its course. Now, dose that sound reasonable to you? --Domer48'fenian' 19:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
ProbationDue to your edit warring on numerous Ireland related articles, I have placed you on the probationary terms available to administrators under the The Troubles. This probation does not self expire, but can be lifted at administrator or community discretion, especially if the terms of probation are not violated.--Tznkai (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This conversation is illuminating, this article shows a history of edit warring, and your tone has been generally inflammatory and, key word here, disruptive.--Tznkai (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC) You have provided noting to back up your accusation of "edit warring on numerous Ireland related articles." I was blocked for 3RR on USC article for a week. Despite your allegations, I'm a good and productive editor. My grammar may be a bit of, but I abide with all our policies on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Not one Admin, has bothered their arse to enforce any of these policies. The usual cop out being it’s a content dispute or some other nonsense. You allow WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:SYN and don’t do a tap to deal with it. Now if you can’t take my honest and frank manner, that’s your problem, don't wave a stick at me. Now I’ll sit out your bad block, because I would not dignify it with an unblock request. Your a bully with a few extra buttons thats all, and I always stand up to bullies. Now have a read of this, and work on it, and you will not need this. In other words do your job. --Domer48'fenian' 18:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC) CensorshipDomer, I feel sorry for you - this place is becoming a joke. I've never seen a more unevenhand and spurious decision in my entire life and that including anything that has ever been handed to me.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Recent accusations?I would like editors to address their recent accusations of me here, including supporting diff's. Unless diff's are provided it is impossible to offer a defence. I will use diff's to support my comments at all times.
Ryan is human and makes mistakes like the rest of us, he accused me of being a sock and then apologised and recently here with Sarah, were they retracted their accusation. I was page banned on the Hunger Article, mentioned by Ryan above. I ask a question in relation to that ban, and it has yet to be answered. The discussion can be found here, and the question I asked was here, and repeated here and here. The same question was raised by another editor here and was still not answered. Would editors like to comment on this page ban and weather they considered it correct? I ask because of the comments by Ryan above, and consider under the circumstances should be addressed. --Domer48'fenian' 11:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Please, I've asked for diff's and could you include the talk page discussions which went along with any reversions I've made. Reverting without using the talk page is considered out and out editwarring. Please give examples of incivility on the talk page? Since it takes two to edit war, please include the sanctions placed on the other editors? As article mentors please include diff's of your attempts to address the problem, something like we tried here and failed? --Domer48'fenian' 12:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Ryan since you did provide some diff's I'd like to say thank you, since you did raise the issue of "edit warring" could you possibly answer the question posed then which was here, thanks, supporting diff's would be helpful. --Domer48'fenian' 13:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Ryan as I outlined above, please provide diff's? I have reviewed the diff's you did supply and none of them show edit warring. Your last post did not include any diff's at all, making it impossible to respond to I think you'll agree? --Domer48'fenian' 13:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Ryan it was you who raised it at the ANI, not once but twice, and I’m asking you to support your comments with diff’s. I think that is reasonable for me to ask. Please consider the comments you have made, and respond to my reasonable requests thanks.--Domer48'fenian' 13:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Needs to be posted on Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcementI would like this placed on the ANI discussion which is titled “Domer.” I have provided diff’s to support my view that referenced information is being removed and that the reasons are not correct. I will provide a similar report on the subject of “Attribution” which is also subject to the same removals despite third party intervention and advice. In addition, I will compile a report on the section titled “Subversion in the UDR Report” again subject to continues removal. I would like editors views and opinions on the insertion and removal of this information. Is the information correctly referenced, is it relevant to the subject matter, is its removal disruptive? Thanks
They also removed this here, though I did not add it. Some of it was restored here however it was reverted again here with the edit summary “Removing POV – again.” I removed some information and replaced the original information, now with three references here, and it was quickly removed again here with the edit summary “rem POV on B Specials.” It was re-added here and removed again here, with the edit summary “Incorrect POV has no place in this article.” I attempted to add it again here, but it was removed again here with the edit summary “removing POV - see talk.” This is their talk page comment here, and the full discussion here. While not accepting the referenced information that then added this here, and here. They then add this commentary here, describing it as an assertion and including more commentary here. They then add this analyses here, which I removed here, and adding this referenced information here. I then used a completely new source here and added a Google books link to assist verifiability here, which they later removed here. This information was then moved here and then add information here. I then added this addition here, which they then asked to be moved to another section here. I then removed some of the commentary they added here only to have it replaced here. They then added this for some reason here. I had added this information for clarity here, but they removed it here with the edit summary “It's a separate artilce - leave it at that please. This isn't about the B Men.” I again removed the addition of opinion into a referenced statement here with the edit summary “you have been asked by an uninvolved admin not to add your opinion” but they inserted it again here with the edit summary “It's not an opinion. I can cite that no cases were ever proven.” I again removed it here and asked “cite them then, and qualify the reference used.” It was again added back here, and they then added this here. I then added “Attribute, and remove qualifying statement from referenced source” edit here and I introduced Rocks solution here. They then started to remove the referenced information again here with this edit summary “remove improper qualification” which I then replaced here with the edit summary “please don't remove referenced information.” They then modified the information here with the edit summary “removing incorrect assertion” and here which I changed here. They then added their own opinion here with the edit summary “changing to reflect the fact that "reputation" wasn't in existence in 1970.” I again replaced this here with the edit summary “Please don't change sourced information, the information is supported throughout the article.” They then started again here with the edit summary “Do not try to assert that something had a reputation before it actually had time to gain one. See Talk.” This is their talk page contribution here, the full discussion is here. I reverted again to reflect the sources here. It was again moved here, with additional information removed, which I had to replace here. This also was then removed here.This discussion should clarify some of the thinking behind its removal? --Domer48'fenian' 17:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Comments
Are you going to post this on Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement for me? Go read the talk page on Ulster Defence Regiment, like you said "Do not bother quoting policy to me, I know it as well as you do." --Domer48'fenian' 17:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Would you object to another editor posting it for me?--Domer48'fenian' 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion of which I'm apart, I would like my contrabution placed in the discussion. Why do I have to wait for my block to expire before it can be posted? --Domer48'fenian' 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Needs to be posted on Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcementThere were a number of issues in relation to attribution. Before I ever started attributing statements, I raised it first on the talk page here in the last paragraph, and was agreed to here, last line in the second last paragraph, "Potter. I can't see any harm in attributing statements to Potter. There may be occasions when I need to draw your attention to items if something appears glaringly obvious." In addition to this they considered that they had not used any opinions of Potter in the article here. Again before I even began, a third opinion was sought, and Rock responded here. My view of Rocks opinion on An Phoblacht, would be the same for any " obvious partisan associations" and would include Potter? When I attempted to start attributing statements I ran into trouble here. I was told that my attempts at attribution were well poisoning. I was informed that the A Testimony to Courage - the Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment 1969 - 1992, John Potter must be "taken as gospel." By attributing statements I was then told I was attempting to start a Contrived Edit War, and there was no consensus to attribute Potter. I had even informed him that there would be no 3RR reports from me and this had been agreed. Rock then gave a third party view here, and again here on attrabution. Based on Rocks input I tried to apply it here but I was expected to take Potter as fact. I then set about attribution, based on the advice given and I commented here, but was again told Potter has to be treated as fact and needs no attribution. I was then accused of synthesis here, Rock again stepped in to help here and again here. I then showed some real synthesis here. They next remove attributions wholesale and comment here. Now if editors review the Article page history they will see this all play out. I will put up the diff's if editors think it is more helpful?--Domer48'fenian' 20:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC) See the above link. You are placed on indefinite probation. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Troubles probationHello Domer48. Based on the consensus here, the probation you were placed under has been lifted, although the 1RR restriction still remains in place for all troubles related articles. Best, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 11:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Easter Rising - reactionsHi. Some of the stuff recently added here (in relation to a "counter balance" to the widely referenced negative reactions) is probably fine, but it does stray into "analysis" a little too much, and may be a little long. If at all possible it may be worth while summarising so that the message is: "Widely publicised accounts at the time suggested the rebellion and the rebels were ill-received amongst the general public, while other reports and more recent analysis suggest that (in working class areas in particular) the rebels were cheered and well received". And leave it at that. This newly added text pre-supposes that the reader is familiar with the subject and resources mentioned, and borders on WP:ANALYSIS. (FYI. Some of the other reasons for this apparent sway in opinion are left out: like sympathy after Connolly's execution, the fact that 3,500 people were interned though only 1,600 took part in the rising, marshal law and curfew remained long after Easter, Griffith's internment, etc). Guliolopez (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Guliolopez about the length, although I understand that you want to present the evidence in order to scotch the myth of the Irish peaople being totally opposed to the rising (I know it was a myth for my grandfather as he and a number of his friends joined the Volunteers in Donegal during Easter Week when he heard a rising was on the go in Dublin - they were obviously in support of it!). Have you read '1916 as history' by C. Desmond Greaves which is only a small booklet (about 40 odd pages) but packed full of information about the rising and the publics reaction - such as cheering the volunteers etc. EoinBach (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Context
I started editing the article on the 8 September. I added additional referenced information here, and an additional reference here. It was then removed here, with the edit summary “Not correct at that time. A Republican POV.” It was also removed here despite the additional reference, with the edit summary “Incorrect - Republican POV.” I added it here with additional information, in addition to here with an additional reference. It was again removed here with the edit summary “Nationalist opinion is of no consequence when talking about Catholic recruits,” and here with the edit summary of “corrected POV.” They also removed this here, though I did not add it. Some of it was restored here however it was reverted again here with the edit summary “Removing POV – again.” I removed some information and replaced the original information, now with three references here, and it was quickly removed again here with the edit summary “rem POV on B Specials.” It was re-added here and removed again here, with the edit summary “Incorrect POV has no place in this article.” I attempted to add it again here, but it was removed again here with the edit summary “removing POV - see talk.” This is their talk page comment here, and the full discussion here. While not accepting the referenced information that then added this here, and here. They then add this commentary here, describing it as an assertion and including more commentary here. They then add this analyses here, which I removed here, and adding this referenced information here. I then used a completely new source here and added a Google books link to assist verifiability here, which they later removed here. This information was then moved here and then add information here. I then added this addition here, which they then asked to be moved to another section here. I then removed some of the commentary they added here only to have it replaced here. They then added this for some reason here. I had added this information for clarity here, but they removed it here with the edit summary “It's a separate artilce - leave it at that please. This isn't about the B Men.” I again removed the addition of opinion into a referenced statement here with the edit summary “you have been asked by an uninvolved admin not to add your opinion” but they inserted it again here with the edit summary “It's not an opinion. I can cite that no cases were ever proven.” I again removed it here and asked “cite them then, and qualify the reference used.” It was again added back here, and they then added this here. I then added “Attribute, and remove qualifying statement from referenced source” edit here and I introduced Rocks solution here. They then started to remove the referenced information again here with this edit summary “remove improper qualification” which I then replaced here with the edit summary “please don't remove referenced information.” They then modified the information here with the edit summary “removing incorrect assertion” and here which I changed here. They then added their own opinion here with the edit summary “changing to reflect the fact that "reputation" wasn't in existence in 1970.” I again replaced this here with the edit summary “Please don't change sourced information, the information is supported throughout the article.” They then started again here with the edit summary “Do not try to assert that something had a reputation before it actually had time to gain one. See Talk.” This is their talk page contribution here, the full discussion is here. I reverted again to reflect the sources here. It was again moved here, with additional information removed, which I had to replace here. This also was then removed here.This discussion should clarify some of the thinking behind its removal? --Domer48'fenian' 17:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Removal of Attributions from authors:There were a number of issues in relation to attribution. Before I ever started attributing statements, I raised it first on the talk page here in the last paragraph, and was agreed to here, last line in the second last paragraph, "Potter. I can't see any harm in attributing statements to Potter. There may be occasions when I need to draw your attention to items if something appears glaringly obvious." In addition to this they considered that they had not used any opinions of Potter in the article here. Again before I even began, a third opinion was sought, and Rock responded here. My view of Rocks opinion on An Phoblacht, would be the same for any " obvious partisan associations" and would include Potter? When I attempted to start attributing statements I ran into trouble here. I was told that my attempts at attribution were well poisoning. I was informed that the A Testimony to Courage - the Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment 1969 - 1992, John Potter must be "taken as gospel." By attributing statements I was then told I was attempting to start a Contrived Edit War, and there was no consensus to attribute Potter. I had even informed him that there would be no 3RR reports from me and this had been agreed. Rock then gave a third party view here, and again here on attrabution. Based on Rocks input I tried to apply it here but I was expected to take Potter as fact. I then set about attribution, based on the advice given and I commented here, but was again told Potter has to be treated as fact and needs no attribution. I was then accused of synthesis here, Rock again stepped in to help here and again here. I then showed some real synthesis here. They next remove attributions wholesale and comment here. Now if editors review the Article page history they will see this all play out. I will put up the diff's if editors think it is more helpful?--Domer48'fenian' 20:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks and assuming bad faithWhen I returned to the article on the 8 September until I went of, not once during that time did I comment on the editors motivation or on them personally. However, I received a barrage of accusations, insinuations and plain and simple personal attacks. I have outlined some of this below, and kept it in sequence as it appears on the talk page. The editor suggested I had a very partisan view of both the RUC and UDR, and negative views from sources were all a propaganda campaign by Republicans against the regiment, they stated as fact that most of the propaganda (or spin) was coming from the Nationalist/Republican side, they then went on to suggest that my argument thus far is heavily weighed with Republican opinion, which is not a fair assumption. They again assumed more bad faith from me and suggested that I wanted to change the synthesis of the article away from it being a general and encyclopedic record, and then said that I “appear to want a general condemnation of the regiment and suggested that I read "well poisoning.” The editor not for the first time then said that they had pointed out the futility of using An Phoblact as a reputable source even though I'd never used it at all! They did. They then accused me of POV editing saying that I had made strong representation to remove some information which is not sympathetic to the Republican POV, and that I was using questionable sources and filling the article with accusations and allegations, later to be told that this was a Republican propaganda method. They then continued in the vein with Already we're seeing what this agenda is Domer, saying that I was “selectively gathering quotes in order to slant the synthesis of the article to a deliberate and known Republican POV. That this was "propaganda" and, a case, "well poisoning" again, and that I should keep my "edits to a neutral POV.” They then carried on and started to describe my edits as being "factually incorrect" "and appear to be based on Republican POV" that they were "very coloured" and that I only knew history "from a Nationalist perspective.” They again not for the first time that I was "making edits which were both incorrect" and "which appeared to be well poisoning." They suggested that their “in depth knowledge of the subject is invaluable" at that point "in keeping the article free of POV." For the second time they then said that I was "drawing heavily on An Phoblact as a source" for certain opinions and again, I'd never used it at all, they did! They then claimed that I was trying to "contriving an edit war", and that I wanted to "fill in as many criticisms of the regiment" as are currently doing the rounds. By attributing comments to Potter, they said I was "absolutely determined to fill this article full of references to "Major Potter", even though I have never quoted of referenced Potter once? In yet another blatent attack they claimed that "once again that your only objection is that it doesn't conform to a Nationalist or Republican POV." In what can only be described as a personal attack they say "Domer has been busying himself posting incorrect information," and that they "haven't had as much fun in ages," later saying I should "go kick something and take a deep breath." When they started to revert my edits they said they were "Removing erroneous information" and that doing so was "not edit warring." When I replaced the sourced and referenced information I was told to "cease with this constant effort to try and portray the UDR as a re-incarnation of the B Specials", and that it was not "within policy for you to try and slant the history". They then suggested later I should "Go ahead now, fill your boots and I'll come up behind to check spelling and grammar and provide quotes if necessary." They finished of by claming that "This article is in severe danger of becoming innacurate because of clever synthesis," and later "From where I am sitting it is a clever method of synthesising information". There is no doubth in my mind if I had of stayed on the talk page this would have continued. The reason I say this is they did continue on the alternative articles. --Domer48'fenian' 14:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Under normal circumstances 3RR acts as a deterrent, but it depends on how and who applies it. Some suggest 3RR is an electric fence, others, well: 1 August 3RR report (no action) 13 August 3RR report (final warned) 14 August 3RR report (page-protected) Notice how on the 13 August report I’m told that no current warning was given? That’s strange since no current warning is needed, only for the editor to be aware of the rule? Now the accusation is made that I was tag-teaming the editor, but I had not edited this article since the 24 July? Despite the final warning, however, they still don’t get blocked. Well they were, but then they were unblocked because the blocking admin did not see the entire situation?. Which was?
"Removal of sourced and reference information" for some examples (edit summary) they want to word it their way?
Having used both English and Irish papers I got this resonce. However they use references 83-86, 93-96 I did not add any of them. Now some papers are fine, the Belfast Telegraph for example. Also on sources here is a good example. And as for reasons to revert here is one. Again on sources some must be taken as gospel. Regardless of what anyone says. While other are well, of no consequence. The point is however, these authors would not be or consider themselves to be Nationalist and definatly not Republican? --Domer48'fenian' 12:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Reverts from sanctionsI have placed the edits on the Ulster Defence Regiment here to be reviewed by Editors.}} AE case closed on 5 October 2008 at 18.02 by Rlevse. All Troubles Articles placed under 1RR. The template below was posted on the Ulster Defence Regiment on 5 October 2008 at 20.00 [24] by SirFozzie. >
Editors will note: If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first. Article was Page Protected on 14 October 2008, 20:10 by SirFozzie [25]
Inserting text: [26], [27] [28] [29] [30], [31], [32], [33] [34], [35], [36], [37] Removing text: [38] Reverting text: [39], [40]
Inserting text:[41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] Removing text: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56] Reverting text:[57], [58]
Inserting text: “Belfast and other urban settings” [59], “Battalions and locations”[60], [61] “Politicians (order by rank, where known)”[62] “Criticism” [65], note, [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73] “Infiltration by paramilitaries” [74] [75], [76], [77], [78] “The Subversion in the UDR report” [79], [80], [81], [82], [83] “Subsequent Catholic recruitment”[84], [85] “Options for Change and amalgamation” [86] “Rural ambushes and attacks”[87], [88], [89] “Mortar attacks” [90] “Uniform, armament & equipment” [91], [92], [93], [94], [95] “Duties”[98] “Attempts to prevent paramilitary infiltration” [101] “Politicians (order by rank, where known)”[102], [103] “Formation”[106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112] “Annual training camps”[113], [114] “Awards, honours and decorations”[115] “Comparison with the Irish Citzens Militia”[116], [117], [118] “Bibliography”[119] “The Men”[120]
“The role of ex-B-Specials in the UDR and the effect on Catholic recruitment” [134], [135], “Options for Change and amalgamation”[136], Max, [137], [138], max, [139], [140] “Battalions and locations”[141], [142], [143] “Attempts to prevent paramilitary infiltration”[144], [145], [146], [147] “Targeting by the IRA”[148], [149] “Rural ambushes and attacks”[150], [151] “Formation”note “Intimidation”[154] “Infiltration by paramilitaries”[155] “Subsequent Catholic recruitment”[156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162] “Uniform, armament & equipment”[163] “Structure”note
Reverting text:
“Options for Change and amalgamation”[167] “Criticism”[168], [169], [170] “History”[171] “Rural ambushes and attacks”[172] “Subsequent Catholic recruitment”[173] “Battalions and locations”[174] “Belfast and other urban settings”[175] “Loyalist Intimidation”[178] “Uniform, armament & equipment”[179] “The Greenfinches”[180] “Attempts to prevent paramilitary infiltration” [181] “Aftercare”[182] “The whole article”[183], note edit summary “Male personnel”[184]
[185], [186], [187], [188], 2nd revert
I will put together some diff’s on talk page contributions, on how they relate to main space edits. I have refrained from putting forward any analysis, until this has been reviewed. --Domer48'fenian' 17:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Your report at WP:AEYour report was nothing less then another attempt to force The Thunderer off that page. Both he and BigDunc are working together and there is no reason why you can't either if you would only put aside your prejudices against them. I know that you don't accept the conclusion that he is not a returning banned editor but that is the consensus and you have to work within it. You were well aware that two admins had already looked at the 1RR because there was posting on the talk page about it. I consider your report was disruptive and I think I should remind you that the recent discussions have left you with a personal probation. Please try to put your personal feeling about The Thunderer to one side or you will find yourself at the end of further administrative action. I assure you that no-one wants to go down that road but you will force it upon us if you are not able to interact with them in a way that does not create further disruption. Administrative and community patience with nonsense in troubles related article is now over. Spartaz Humbug! 09:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Just a suggestion..I wouldn't take me blocking Thunderer for 24 hours as carte blanche to do any further reversion of his work on the UDR article. He's informed me that he's asked a neutral administrator to look at the edits in question and I'll not protect the page until such review has been done, but let's not make a volatile situation any worse, ok? (I'm not saying you guys will, I'm just covering my bases here, and I'll leave a notice for Dunc as well). SirFozzie (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
PIRAIf you have the time and inclination, I could use some back-up over at the PIRA article. Some joker thinks that saying "British rule in Northern Ireland" is POV. I say it is a simple statement of fact. Oh, and if you have Tim Pat's IRA, can you check the validity of the ref this guy added? I do not have the book to hand, otherwise I would do it myself. Thanks, Domer. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
TU you know what RJ mean;)--Domer48'fenian' 07:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Something odd about your welcome message...Hi there...I was just over at Ferry Baot's userpage, dropping him a vandalism warning, and I notice you'd welcomed him. The date on your welcome message, though, says "24 February 2007" as its date. For a minute I thought "wow, FB has been here for nearly 2 years and this is the first vandalism he's ever done?" but then I looked at the talkpage history and realized you'd only placed that welcome today. The only thing I can guess is that you copied the message of whomever welcomed you, and the date came hardcoded in the copy. Either way, it's no huge deal--I just thought I'd mention it in case you hadn't noticed. Thanks! Gladys J Cortez 08:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Topic BanHi Domer. I have placed you, Dunc and Thunderer all on a one month topic ban from Troubles related articles. See here for details of your topic ban. SirFozzie (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Launch of Coolacrease book"Coolacrease: the True Story of an Incident in the Irish War of Independence", 470 pages, Aubane Historical Society, by Paddy Heaney and other contributors. Launch by Senator Pat Moylan at Offaly History Society, Bury Quay, Tullamore, Co. Offaly, 8 p.m. Thursday November 6 2008. The book contains copies of all the relevant source documents. In particular, the Land Commission documents on which RTÉ claimed that its version of the incident was based, but which the Land Commission denied that RTÉ had access to. Pat Muldowney (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
aeMy primary assertion was that the community was exhausted with you. I'm particularly interested in arguing with you over minutiae or your supposed rights (no one has rights on wikipedia, except perhaps the right to vanish), but I will humor you, but you will have to wait until I take the time to do so. The issue remains however, that you have little community support for example that AE thread has hardly a nice thing said about you, and more than a few people saying that your the 1 month topic ban is not enough.
You have made accusations, you are being ask politely to back them up and you are decling to do so. Now this discussion is not the wiki community and you do not speak for the community, they can speak for themselves if they wish. Please don't think for me, or tell me what I'm thinking. Just support the accusations you are making agains me, and let me defend myself. --Domer48'fenian' 13:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Since the last AE show me were I have I have been disruptive, uncivil or edit warred? You do not speak for the community, this discussion is not the community, if you want their opinion open a RfC on me. Now support these with diff's.
Just provide the diff's to support both your proposals and comments. --Domer48'fenian' 13:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll address this later, what I will say however, is that to suggest the sanctions that you proposed based on this, would result in a RfC. --Domer48'fenian' 22:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rock I think your right that there is not going to be any further movement on this, thought Tznkai has indicated that they have something in the works? I would not be too down over it just yet, Wiki has a way of bouncing back, and I don't think the community would allow an editor to be topic banned without reason? As things cool down and editors take a more considered view, they will review the recent issue and see how I was both reasonable and polite during talk page discussions, and followed the advice I was offered. I don't think we have yet reached the stage were an Admin can topic ban an editor from hundreds of articles because of an issue with one. Do you think it is in your gift as an admin to have such control, or would it be acceptable to the community? I don't agree with this solution as I'm sure you don't, and neither will all right thinking members of the community. We just have to have faith, and while mine is brused its not broken. I will deal with what ever comes along, and will continue to follow your advice. thanks --Domer48'fenian' 07:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image (Image:Legacy Derek Warfield.JPG)Thanks for uploading Image:Legacy 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Liberté '98 Derek Warfield.JPG)Thanks for uploading Image:Liberté '98 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sons of Erin Derek Warfield.JPG)Thanks for uploading Image:Sons of Erin 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Domer. Your best move would be to get the country article moved (and the island article) first. Others might views the moving of RoI's related articles as an attempt to put pressure on the country article. We both know, how messy that could get. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
From the WikiProject IrelandYou're correct, AE doesn't effect the Flag article (much to my relief). I was just being cautious. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I've proposed modifications to your existing topic ban here please comment.--Tznkai (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Blocked indefinitelyFor, amongst other things, attempting to out another editor repeatedly after being told not to by numerous people, your account has been blocked indefinitely. SirFozzie (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Vin, its all done by email these days, I didnt out anyone! Its over to ArbCom now to bring this BS to an end. --Domer48'fenian' 20:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? Domer is blocked indefinitely (by the same Foz who blocked me indefinitely I note). For what? Was his "crime" worse that mine? (Memory jog; I was three weeks blocked for, basically, nothing). Sarah777 (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, some statements for you to look at: I have never ever threatened to reveal the real life identity of another editor, ever! --Domer48'fenian' 08:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been privately shown some of the evidence that resulted in this block and I agree that it is proportionate and necessary. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC) (My highlighting)
One diff, here uninvolved?--Domer48'fenian' 09:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
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 would definitively undertake not to out anybody, nor to connect any present accounts to past account. Decline reason: I have to decline this for the moment, due to concerns. Other admins, please do not unblock without first contacting the blocking admin. — Jehochman Talk 21:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 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. A denial is all well and good. It would be a stronger unblock request if you undertook definitively not to out anybody, nor to connect any present accounts to past account. I am guessing that is already your intention, but it would not hurt you in any way to say so. Jehochman Talk 21:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
That is really decent of you Jehochman, thanks it’s a welcome change. I’ll do that now.--Domer48'fenian' 21:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again Jehochman, is it any Admin in particular who has expressed concern or all three? If they wish to email me, being at a disadvantage, I’m unaware what those concerns are, I’ll be more than will to address each and every one. --Domer48'fenian' 21:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Conditional unblock proposalDon't ask me why, but I've just had a long chat with the blocking admin. Based on the above assurance that there will be no further "outing" attempts (on or off wiki), it seems that the following set of conditions would likely lead to an unblock, should you agree:
If you are willing to undertake abiding by the above conditions, I believe that SirFozzie will be willing to lift the indefinite block. Please respond here on your talk page, so there's no question who said what - and also because it's likely either SirFozzie or another admin will respond further to you as I am about to go offline for an extended period. --Risker (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi again Jehochman, I have to date not received any emails from anyone outlining their concerns for me, as you mentioned above. I have emailed one of the Admin’s outlining mine, and hope to hear back soon, as this has gone on long enough. I would have absolutely no problem with you having a look at any un-published concerns and give me your opinion publicly or privately. I would prefer the former, as there is too much of this of wiki discussion and there is nothing I not happy to share with the rest of the community. Now Risker has outlined a conditional unblock proposal. One condition of it was that I accept Tznkai’s proposals on AE. Dunc has suggested an amendment on AE to those proposals and Tznkai has says they have no objection to the amendment. I’m now willing to accept all of the conditions outlined by Risker. I not happy about it at all, but if it moves this on so be it. Below is the conditions: Proposals (Amended)
The aforementioned referee panel will consist of Avruch (talk • contribs), Tiptoety (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights), Nishkid64 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) Not part of the proposal per se, but the article specific 1RR restrictions as applied by previous AE thread are continued, but should be revisited later--Tznkai (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC) --Domer48'fenian' 15:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Why?If there is nothing but vague circumstantial (or some such) "evidence" against Domer, why is he still blocked? "To link a block based on “a misunderstanding” to the AE proposals is curious" . It certainly is; and that is exactly what happened me. I reverted a "merge" (deletion) that was executed without following proper procedure (in an area that had absolutely nothing to do with The Troubles, Ireland/Britain or anything remotely related) - got blocked indefinitely by Fozzie and then ended up blocked for weeks while they pondered my "civility"; which was totally unrelated to the initial block. Sarah777 (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Why Domer should be unblockedI have now been sent quite a lot of information and it seems to me what happened was that in the interests of a level playing field Domer emailed an Admin who was taking part in an ANI discussion with other Admins (who had more information at their fingertips) and said something to the effect of "You do know account A is account B right?" That is not outing at all, but quite different. I have certainly received and sent such emails myself in the past and expect to continue to do so, some such emails have been sent to me by very important Wikipedians indeed. One example springs immediately to mind when such actions finally brought to an end an entire POV army of socks and clones - Admins and checkusers were quite happy for such speculation to be emailed on that occasion. As usual some Troubles' Admin has jumped the gun again. If something soon isn't done to supervise The Troubles, its admins and editors the pages may as well be deleted - all of them. I for one don't know what to trust and believe in them, I expect others feel the same. I hope some Admin reading this will now have the sense to unblock Domer. Giano (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that all emails be posted up here and simply A and B certain names. I gave an undertaking to an Admin that I would desist in a particular line of discussion. I kept to it and let it drop. Now it was Tznkai, in the absence of any justification for their proposed sanctions raised this particular issue into the discussion. I emailed them and told them I was unable to respond and told them why. I’d given an undertaking on this. I asked them to remove their comments and they did. This is missing from Tznkai’s account above. MBisanz who like Tznkai could not justify the proposed sanctions, they in fact had to strike some of their proposed evidence, and refused to strike the rest despite Alison’s intervention, started to proceed down the same road as Tznkai. I emailed Tznkai and asked them to say it to MBisanz, and ask them to ask MBisanz to remove their reference to it, and was told to do it myself. That’s exactly what I did. MBisanz response was to make a post on the discussion making accusations, and on their talk page. I was then indef blocked. Now Alison has described me as a super editor, despite some major differences of opinion. Like Alison, despite our differences I too have defended her when banned editors have made attacks, and I have been quite forceful in my defence. Now I don’t think it would reveal any editors account if the email I sent MBisanz was posted here, by applying the A and B. Let the community decide. So lets deal with the unblock, and if Tznkai wants to continue the discussion with ArbCom on the other matters I’ve no problem at all. If at all, it should be done in the open, so both the community and ourselves can learn from our mistakes. I agree completely with both Jehochman and Giano with their comments above. --Domer48'fenian' 17:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I'll read through them? Could you please put up the email that was used to indef block me? Thats the one editor what to see? --Domer48'fenian' 19:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, it’s Mbisanz that has me here. They get an editor an indef block and don’t take part in this discussion. Why not “ping” them and invite them to contribute. I have given the ok for the email to be produced. --Domer48'fenian' 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hang on look at your comments above that you posted, thats what got me blocked. Now do you want to put the email with the threats or will I do it for you. Going by your post above, I would have blocked an editor. Now could you please post it for the community to decide. --Domer48'fenian' 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thats grand, I've already ok'ed it. So could an Admin with it, or I'll email it to them, do the A and the B on it, just so it is done right thanks --Domer48'fenian' 19:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The email I sent: "MBisanz are you the only one who dose not know yet that A is B? Withdraw your last comment, remove it. I have given an undertaking not to raise the matter, therefore I’m not in a position to respond. Check the history of the discussion, tznkai has removed their comments already. Thanks D" Thats what I got indef blocked for, and that is the threats I was supposed to have made. --Domer48'fenian' 20:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Rock there is no other information! If there is, put it up for the Community to review. I still have one issue, and I would like advice on it, my email is open. --Domer48'fenian' 09:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Time to end this NOWI've read through everything now. There is simply no case at all against Domer. I demand that some Admin (including you Rock) lift his block NOW. Pronto. Not tomorrow, not in 10 minutes. Now. Sarah777 (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Two points:
Unblock review, further infoI declined Domer48's unblock request based on a review of the situation.[189] I have continued asking for information to ensure that my decision was the correct one. My understanding:
These facts have been represented to me by multiple reliable parties. I suggest that Domer48 contact ArbCom if they wish further review of the situation. Admins should not unblock without fully understanding the facts of the matter. Jehochman Talk 13:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hm. Last night I looked at a proposal for conditional unblock that seemed entirely appropriate, and fully expected to see it posted here and approved this morning. I have no idea why this has been escalated to the point that an arbitrator has had to get involved; the issues were not nearly as complex as that. Sorry, Domer. Risker (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
What?What the bloody blue blazes is going on here? Before I went to bed, I sent an email to Dunc and someone else (I don't have their ok) regarding proposed terms to unblock, and when I woke up 15 minutes ago, I was fully expecting to be able to present them to Domer, and then unblock. Now things are worse then they were before.. let's all take a minute to breathe. Domer, if you promise not to get to angry at me for suggesting them, I'll post them here, now. SirFozzie (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Proposed unblock termsI was waiting for an indication from Dunc that he had received my email, but since that's not forthcoming. (he's probably smart and out having a pint on a Friday night. Actually wish I could join him if that's the case!) Suggested terms: A) Domer either gets a mentor or joins the ongoing mediation So, you may begin tearing me apart now if you so wish. SirFozzie (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
UpdateI have now had emails from Tznkai, Jehochman and SirFozzie, and broadly, they all do agree now and the case makes more sense. My reading of the back history of this case is that because of these reasons, it was possible in good faith for different users to interpret the case in different ways. This is the summary I have so far:
Additional background information:
This is something I have become all too familiar with in discussions, which are accusations with no supporting evidence. I’m disappointed that FT2 at no time contacted me for my view before posting. Just maybe, there is another side to the story or that they my not have got the full picture, or possibly another misunderstanding / misinterpretation. I deny the charge of bullying, harassment, disruption and WP:OWN and I can support this view with diff’s. The only thing being presented here is comment and opinion. FT2 could you possibly provide a summary of my issues and concerns? --Domer48'fenian' 19:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Would it not be reasonable to lift the block first and then discuss the sanctions. The block had no foundation? --Domer48'fenian' 19:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The block was without foundation! Now, if you check the discussion on AE, you will see that it was Tznkai who introduced the subject and not me. I said it to them and they removed the comments. Please lift the block, and we can discuss the sanctions in a reasonable and clam manner. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 20:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I'm tempted to say no, considering the fact that you rather flagrantly violated the topic ban previously. But until you hear otherwise, from me, or a consensus of admins on AE: Terms:A) Domer either gets a mentor or joins the ongoing mediation (Domer's Choice, strongly suggested that he join the mediation) B) Topic ban.. on Irish articles dealing with the modern Troubles, 1969-present day.. to be reviewed at the end of the year, and C) 1RR on ALL articles Unblock Granted. SirFozzie (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Thread by Sarah777heading added by Jehochman Talk OK, as I thought I saw through the fog a while back, the facts are thus:
Am I missing something here guys? Sarah777 (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no way any reasonable person could suggest that I a) threatened an Admin to remove sanctions b) threatened to “out” anyone, and c) tried to get an Admin to file a case against anyone. Please let that be the end of it. --Domer48'fenian' 20:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Please stop now. The block was wrong. Forcing sanctions on me to be unblocked was wrong. Now I’m willing to put it down as a misunderstanding. If we are to WP:AGF:assume good faith, it should be accepted as being wrong. Now leave it at that. --Domer48'fenian' 20:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
SanctionsI previously agreed to Riskers unblock proposals, which were proposed by Tznkai, modified by Dunc and placed on AE. The ones I accepted offer the referees a much better opportunity to review my conduct and editing style. I will place both here side by side for editors to review. These are the ones I accepted:
These are the ones proposed / imposed: Terms:
Now the question editors my reasonable ask is, why place my self under such strict observation? The answer is, I know I can edit well, and conduct my self in a manner compatible with our policies and guidelines. Another question reasonable editors could ask is why accept sanctions, if you don’t believe you deserve them, and in the absence of any justification for them? The answer is simple and selfish. With this many editors watching me, any hassle and aggravation I get from edit warriors and POV merchants will be noted, and I will receive the protection all editors on wiki deserve and should expect. Now is that not reasonable, and honest? --Domer48'fenian' 20:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The longer I'm being watched the better for me. Why topic ban me from hundreds of articles, when the problem is on just one? I think that the 0RR should be 1RR like everyone else, and you suggested that yourself. So is that agreed then, Tznkai and Dunc's proposals. Now could someone invite me to mediation, I don't want to gate crash?--Domer48'fenian' 21:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Short statementThere have been a lot of conflated issues here, and more than a few strong personalities conflicting with eachother. In this, much of what was at issue in actuality, Domer's block, has been lost in abstractions and discussions, and the general melodrama that occurs when a lot of people don't trust eachother and don't have all of the information argue. So, we have a profound failure of trust. There are, if you believe some of the voices here, no mistakes: only malicious actions and cover ups. It is here we see why the assumption of good faith is so important: without it, all mistakes are actually evidence of bad faith, and thanks to the vagaries of text communication, there is no reliable way to tell. As a purely practical matter, accusations take a lot of time and energy to deal with: energy better spent on fixing the problem Without pointing blame at anyone in particular, I would like to say that this issue was overblown, or at least overwrought. If nothing else, something we can all agree on, is that it has taken far too long, and far too many people to get it to any state of resolution. So, on that note, I would like to apologize to Domer for length and stress involved in resolving the issue. We have wasted a profound amount of time and energy on this, and I apologize for my part in it. --Tznkai (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC) P.S I will be without reliable internet access until late Sunday. SirFozzie and FT2 are specifically authorized to use my communications with them in any reasonable or appropriate manner, based on their discretion. Everyone else will have to hold their damned horses. Re: Kevin BarryYou are correct, and I have reverted myself. I did not recognize the IP and the edits, especially without an edit summary, looked like vandalism. Thanks for your message setting me straight. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC) AEYour attention and comments are invited here. Thunderer (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC) MediationYou are invited to take part here BigDuncTalk 16:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know the history of that article, so thank you for the link to the ArbCom decision. The most informative part is that you were among those sanctioned. The "principles" you point me to are in fact just the basic rules of Wikipedia, and indeed, I take them quite seriously. It would appear that you might be the one bringing an agenda to the table. For the benefit of a relative newcomer, do you want to tell me what that agenda is, or do I need to guess? Hiro Antagonist (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
New requested move at Flag of IrelandYou are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC) fictitious oathAfter reading the citation on the talk page, the strong balance of probability is that the claimed oath is fictitious, so I've outright deleted. --Red King (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...You're welcome. Though, to be honest, I am not certain what you are referring to now. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!Thanks for the warning. I have not really been paying much attention to the wiki these last two days, so I might well have missed it. Have a good weekend! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Hiya Domer48. What's the story on that article; there appears to be dependant countries listed. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Terms of editingI saw your note on the MedCom talk page. If you are referring to T.'s creation of a sandbox page on the UDR, how does this affect our Terms of Editing? Sunray (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Sunray for assuming bad faith as to my intensions, since I have not at any time suggested I would violate the terms, I don't find your comment helpful. If however it was an attempt at balance, I would also find it unhelpful, and suggest you direct your attention towards the clearly identified source of the problem, and not the editor who brought it to your attention. --Domer48'fenian' 08:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC) 1RRYou have broken the terms of your probation on Bobby Sands here and here. You would be best advised to self revert. Many thanks.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Your recent post on case talk pageI take your point about "equal" gaming of the system. I also appreciate your acknowledgment of your own responsibility. I don't want to belabour the point. I have recognized that you have taken considerable initiative in this case. If you get the point we've been making about finger pointing, let's move on. Tomorrow is another day. Sunray (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed you have Sunray. The comments are unhelpful and commented upon, yet the behaviour is not? So don’t comment on the other guy, despite giving the two fingers to the whole process of mediation, ok that’s fine. I will make the necessary adjustments and will not report any editors conduct on mediation, but rather at the appropriate forum like WP:AE or WP:3RR. I also noticed the comment on WP:AE, which seems to be keeping in line with most of the comments here in that its selective. Thanks for that, --Domer48'fenian' 20:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I tend to be a bit more relaxed on my talk page, a bit more frank and open if you know what I mean. So if you’d like me to respond, it would have to be with the understanding that my comments on this page will not be used as examples of any type of behaviour on say mediation? Would that be ok with you? If not simply don’t respond, I’ll understand. --Domer48'fenian' 21:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: a wordI have been away most of the day, but thank you for bringing this to my attention directly instead of continuing the nonsense on AE. I am reviewing the matter.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
A word on your mediation and recent edit warThere is clearly a significant problem, and I intend to get to the bottom of it. I am not going to block anyone yet: there are several "guilty" parties, but I'm not yet sure if any one deserves more severe sanctions than the other. I am going through the contribution logs slowly and carefully. Ideally by the time I am done, the point will be moot. If not however, everyone is going to have a bad day: some much worse than others. Preliminarily, I have this to say to all of three of you: The one blame I am willing to lay on equally all three of your shoulders is this: you responded to reverting by reverting. This is the fundamental error in your method: all edit wars, revert wars especially are incredibly harmful, far more harmful than leaving an infuriating edit while you pursue editors on the talk page or seek outside assistance. It is just Wikipedia. There is no benefit to reverting an edit now that can't wait for a mediator, admin, third party, or a well measured post on the talk page to step in instead. Mediation is not about policing, and it certainly isn't about policing eachother. You maintain your end of the bargain, even if the other person doesn't hold up theres at the moment. Besides the fact we need to accept that good faith mistakes can be made, there is naked self interest involved: the party that follows the rules best and in the best faith gains an advantage over the other. If the admins are slow, or hands off for the moment, or longer, that can be frustrating: but we are volunteers with busy lives, and other concerns both on and off wiki. Patience is hard, but it is so necessary in mediation. The report I have heard from the mediator is that all three of you have broken the mediation agreement. Despite his obvious frustration, he is still willing to come back to the table if all of you are. Something you should remember: the mediation is for all of you. After this latest stunt, the community at large and the admin corps, from what I have been told, is frustrated and upset. They are not particularly caring for which one of you is more to blame than the other. As far as I am concerned, you are *all* out of reversions, under any circumstance. No more reversions unless the reverted edit is so severe you are willing to endure a block - even if you are right. --Tznkai (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC) P.S: I am aware there has been progress. I hope that this will be the low point in the mediation process, and things will improve rapidly after this. ThoughtsI've not had much chance to be online this weekend. I'll try to catch up with things tomorrow. I've some thoughts on an alternative approach, hopefully I'll some chance to draft something along the lines I'm thinking, but I probably won't have time for that before Tuesday evening. David Underdown (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
ThoskitIf you'd care to weigh in over at Talk:The Wind That Shakes the Barley (film), I'd appreciate it. This guy just does not seem to understand the policy on notability and verifiability when it comes to references. Of course, if you'd rather stay out of it, I understand that too. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
ProblemsDomer, I'm going to be very busy probably until Sunday, and only able to edit sporadically until then, but I will try to spare what time I can to get to the bottom of these problems. I'm sorry to say, but you're not going to get much quality attention from the admins that frequent AE because of the world class, top shelf Wikipolitics bullshit thats going on. (To be blunt) Ideally, that little melodrama will get resolved soon, but I wouldn't bet on it. If you can be patient, I can do my best to sort this through. E-mail me the usernames users you're concerned about, and I'll look into it. As a quick note, editor's personal opinion *is* a legitimate ground to edit from, when that opinion is on the style writing, not on the truth or falsehood of the content. You can of course disagree, but don't just say "its against policy." In addition, when using the Undo function, use a detailed rationale unless it is strictly vandalism: page blanking, patent nonsense and so on. Other than that, from a quick scan of your recent contributions, you've been playing ball, and I want you to know I've noticed that I'll do my best to work on this, but my Real Life has to take priority, I'm sure you understand. --Tznkai (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
NotificationI've asked the referee panel to convene, as seen here. Thank you. --Tznkai (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Regimental titleI've put a few sample things on the North Irish Horse talkpage. Largely though it's just how British Army unit naming practice works, if there's something in brackets in the middle of the unit title like that, it's part of the official name. In particular, see Category:Royal Artillery regiments and you'll see similar practice for a number of RA regiments, sometimes place name derived, sometimes maintaining the name of a previous regiment that was converted to an artillery role. David Underdown (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 3rrI know. That's why I haven't re-edited yet.--Him and a dog 18:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hiya Domer48. The problem is, Wikipedia doesn't allow articles to have the same name. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge ROI into Ireland? Get rid of ROI, thats not the name of the country. --Domer48'fenian' 21:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Talk is cheap, and paper never refuses ink. You will get all kinds of accusations, and what is the alternative to Nationalism PoV? This is an Encyclopedia, we only deal with sources that are WP:RS and WP:V, accusations are simply that, accusations. Don't you agree? We are not here to pander to editors sensibilities. --Domer48'fenian' 21:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I bet you a pound to a penny if it was a source based discussion it would pass? --Domer48'fenian' 21:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Dunc in that case, you open a discussion and set clear ground rules such as comments must be supported with sources. This rules out the comment merchants. You request an outside mediator to ensure that the agreement is kept, and then you request a page move, to be reviewed by the mediator, and determined on the strenght of arguement and the sources provided? Now if there was a strict watch kept on civility and the WP:TPG you would have the makings of a good consensus, one difficult to over turn. But that is just my opinion. GoodDay if I though we could agree on the above conditions, I would be the first to make the call. --Domer48'fenian' 22:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Well when the election is over, run it by the ArbCom and I know if we get enough good will editors on board, we will have the makingings of a first class discussion and an agreed solution. --Domer48'fenian' 22:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The odds and the vocal pitch dose not faze me at all. The weaker the argument they have the more vocal they become, hoping that yours becomes lost it their hyperbole. Now a discerning Admin would cut through this hyperbole and extract what is relevant and dismiss the rest in an ideal world. The only way to address this is to keep your comments succinct and to the point, and hope an Admin picks up on it. Why not draw up what you think would be a good set of ground rules for a discussion, and I’ll work on it with you? --Domer48'fenian' 22:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Rock I'd never dream of putting you in such a position. LOL. I was just having a knock at your arguement on the other talk page, did you notice I'm sanction free now. If I never go back to AE it will be still too soon. --Domer48'fenian' 22:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC) An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
MooretwinMany thanks for your message on my talk page. If you think it is clear that this editor has engaged in specific attacks upon you or behaved in an uncivil manner, then there is a problem, and since this editor has engaged in troublesome exchanges with both myself and SirFozzie and made accusations against us that we are disruptive and/or engaged in a vendetta against him, then it may not be a good idea for me to get further involved, because we are already at the point where we may be too involved (and ence viewed by other administrators as not being guaranteed to be independant or unbiased enough) to take any further action. I suggest you mark each incident of incivility by means of a suitable templated warning on the editor's talk page, and report then to WP:AIV once the warnings have got to the last level and a further incident of personal attack has happened. Unless some other administrators are prepared to take this case on, and relieve both myself and SirFozzie from being the target of his accusations, which may end up becoming much more nasty, then perhaps this is a way to deal with the matter. However, if you haven't already, I imagine you may well get labelled as a harrasser and being engaged in a vendetta as well. I know it is probably not what you wanted to hear, but disruption of this type can be quite tricky to deal with in the context of wikiepdia and other administrators who sometimes differ in their interpretation of how to behave. I think you can guess what I think would be appropriate. DDStretch (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Dunc, I have that one. Is there not a template for existing users? --Domer48'fenian' 17:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I was almost sure there was another list of templates for use on editors talk pages? I suppose they will do anyway. Thanks again, --Domer48'fenian' 17:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Thats grand User:ddstretch, no worries. I just don't want it to get out of hand. Thanks again, --Domer48'fenian' 23:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
It appears events have intervened at the minute. While I’m loath to have to go to AE, (never again being too soon) if it continues it seems like the only alternative. It would be moot to raise it now however, but hopefully this will have a salutary effect. Thanks for the advice it is appreciated, --Domer48'fenian' 19:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for the advice; I was starting to run out of options. I hope this will be the end of it, and we can get back to editing in a more constructive environment. I will be more than willing to draw a line under this, and return to the assumption of good faith, but if you could keep the articles on your watch list for a while I be very grateful. I will bear in mind your suggestions, and if needs must I will follow through on them, thanks again, --Domer48'fenian' 19:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've a real pain in the arse with it. I'm more than willing to assume good faith, and draw a line under the past, but it is not looking good at the minute. I do hope when they come back from the block that they change their attitude, but that post on their talk page is just a platform for a rant. I will not allow their conduct to affect mine, and I will not allow myself to be drawn into a slagging match. I've copped onto myself, and it is working out for me. Thanks again for that, --Domer48'fenian' 23:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you ≈ jossi ≈ for that, I really hope it helps. In this case "It takes to to tango" dose not apply. I'm more than happy for Admins to monitor my edits, and to draw my attention to any edit they feel needs to be corrected. Thanks again, --Domer48'fenian' 09:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Removal of cited scholarly work from Sinn Féin...has been reverted. Criticism != partisanism. If you feel it's necessary, you're free to provide a balancing quote from a similar source, but the inclusion of that quote is not a patent violation of WP:NPOV. Dppowell (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
What WP:OR? The source is a paper that was accepted for presentation at a respected academic conference. Or are you referring to something else? Dppowell (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC) I'm the one who added the source, please read the discussion first will you. The sourse says "While Sinn Féin (variously translated as ‘Ourselves’, inelegantly as ‘We Ourselves’ or incorrectly as ‘Ourselves Alone’)." Now do you want to address your introduction of WP:OR?--Domer48'fenian' 13:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Northern IrelandHiya Domer. IMO, Northern Ireland, England, Wales & Scotland should not be listed on any Countries lists. Personally, I prefer the description constituent country for all 4. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC) FYIWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Complaint_against_User:Domer48_for_disruptive_editing.2C_etc. MBisanz talk 18:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that User:Snowded, I'll ignore it for now. I've asked for an outside opinion, and will wait to see what they think I should do. Jossi was very clear about this on their talk page, and I'd hoped they would have moved on from their block. I was mistaken. Thanks again, --Domer48'fenian' 23:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Mediation/North Irish HorseDomer, would you mind if the stuff from the mediation that was to do with sourcing on North Irish Horse was copied to the article talkpage? I'd jsut like the work I did on checking out the sources to end up somewhere slightly more relevant. David Underdown (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
AppearancesHi, I just wanted to respond to your posts on my talk page. While I'm not interested in delving into the depths of your dispute, as I am not involved in any step of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and have no desire to be, I would like to comment on what the situation on my talk page looks like, to someone completely uninvolved. Mooretwin was completely within his rights to ask me to explain the reasoning behind my close on the requested move of Special Category Status. I am not taking anybody's side in this, but when 2 editors show up on my talk page to criticize an editor who made a reasonable request of me, it looks extremely like tag-teaming. I am not accusing you of tag-teaming, I am merely stating that a disinterested observer on my talk page could reasonably make that conclusion. This is something of which you should be careful in the future. While you may be in the right, it is easy to get so worked up over something that you don't realize that you've crossed a line. Just thought I'd let you know, as a helpful note. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Hi Aervanath, if an editor makes an accusation against another editor such as "User:Domer48 amd User:Big Dunc - editors with a history of personal conflict against me" well then your well within your rights to challange it, no matter were it is posted. Would you not agree? You will also notice that this is not an isolated incident, in fact is ongoing and persistent. Would you agree that it is easy to get so worked up over something like this, and I do agree that a line has been crossed. Thanks for the note, --Domer48'fenian' 15:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Happy Christmas
WoI articleI neglected to check the Discussion page of WoI article, so missed the explanation of recent changes. I think Michael Laffan's book "Resurrection of Sinn Féin" might provide some interpretation of the primary sources, though it's written from a point of view which is hostile to the form that the independence movement took. Pat Mul. 78.144.217.94 (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
|