User talk:Domer48/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Re:The spirit of 3rr

Yes, 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)

Thanks for that. --Domer48 (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Segi

I 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:

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

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)

[edit] Re: Roger Casement

Thanks. 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)

No problem! Incourage them towards the talk page, and don't allow their reverting to reflect bad on yourself. --Domer48 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] famine/hunger page

Hi. 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)

Seems fine. --Domer48 (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note regarding User:R. fiend's RFC

Please 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)

[edit] Peadar Clancy Article

Good 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)

Thanks Dunc. My first real attempth at an Article, so I suppose it's a start. I'm not even going to bother with them, decided not to argue about it. From now on, I'll just ignore the row risers, and carry on editing. The system may not be perfect, and may be slow, but I do think it works. They will be copped sooner or later, I'm just happy with the attempth. --Domer48 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Who will be "copped" sooner or later? On the one hand you claim you've issued a frank and sincere apology for your behaviour on Wikipedia, and on the other you continue to label editors as "row risers".
BigDunc, as you admitted to me yourself, you don't like nor understand grammar. I think you should, therefore, refrain from dismissing the attempts of those who do by referring to them as "stalkers".--Damac (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for a rash flippant statement Damac (talk), and I didn't say that I don't understand grammer just that I hate it and often got it wrong BigDunc (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:1916-1921 club 030.jpg

Thanks 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)

Sorted. --Domer48 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend

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)

[edit] User_talk:John#RfC

Wheres you dignity Timothy? How unedifying!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

True true, but what can you do? Put up or shut up. --Domer48 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Connor Clune

From 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)

As far as I have read there is debate about this, some places he is claimed as a volunteer others not. BigDunc (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
He may have been on the fringes without actually being a Volunteer.--Padraig (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats true I will see if I can find where I read that he was a Vol. BigDunc (talk) 20:04, 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)

Came across this which seems to suggest he was a civilian, scroll down to November 21.--Padraig (talk) 08:33, 17 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 was going to use that, you have stolen my thunder! Seriously though, I do have a number of sources to support the view that he was a Volunteer. --Domer48 (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peadar Clancy

I see that I may have misjudged you; if so, I apologise. Alice✉ 08:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interrogation

Your 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)

I had a few questions of my own to ask. Bad form removing your comments though. I will not be distracted by any of this, I enyoy editing and thats all that matters. --Domer48 (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it is still productive to have a dialogue with Domer48 since it is not clear that I should assume bad faith in his case. There are many avenues you can pursue on WP, BigDunc, if you wish to have an "open and fair debate", but my talk pages aren't the best venue because of the very limited audience and my clear categorisation of you as "someone who can't recognise biased prose when it jumps off the page and bites them in the bum", BigDunc. Alice✉ 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Domer48: I need to do a little more research before I respond to your latest response on my talk page - I have rather limited access to Irish materials and I want to check a few facts before I respond further. I also feel it would be easier for both of us to arrive at some conclusions if it were a dialogue rather than a free for all (it might become more heated and less enlightening if all the various "POV pushers" that categorised the "Ulster Banner"/"Sectarian Rag" "debates" show up). Just let me know if you don't wish to continue a dialogue because you will be lacking support. Alice✉ 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There she goes with the patronising Domer, thats step one seems like she has judged you too, very good at judging people she is, watch for the conditional apology removal when you dont tell her what she wants to hear.BigDunc (talk) 20:28, 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)

I don't think it's useful to stereotype editors too much, which is why I put "POV pushers" in quotes (either normal or "scare") above.
I'm hoping that you've learnt a lot since those old diffs, Domer48 and that, if you answer some simple questions unequivocally, it won't be necessary to dredge up old edits.
And I do understand your stance that seems to jive with my own: better a rational dialogue than a free-for-all. Within a few days I will respond on my own talk page since it seems that we've at least agreed the basic format of a dialogue rather than a multilogue. Alice✉ 02:25, 22 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)

I'm not aware of having yet provided any diffs whatever (whether concerning civility or COI) with respect to you, Domer48. Are you confusing the 4 diffs I provided for BigDunc's contributions?
For me, civility is no big deal - I am pseudonymous after all and I certainly have not noticed your civility being a major problem - my main concern is editors that are technically smart but introduce a clever agenda of bias; plain vandals are much easier to deal with. Please be patient and within a week I think we will make real progress; either the air of unsubstantiated allegation will have cleared or you will have neglected/refused to answer pertinent questions. Alice✉ 10:12, 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)

I'm not appointing myself witchfinder-general, and on re-reading my post above I see it was poorly worded. Except for and User:Coloane, User:Corticopia and User:Perspicacite, I have not minutely examined other users' edits and I think you know the circumstances in which your Wikipedian behaviour came to my attention on John's talk page. I did not choose you as the most egregious COI culprit or even because you were the easiest target. If you believe that others have been equally or more guilty, then please start a new section in my user space and provide a few diffs. Be patient - you've been generally regarded as being guilty of biased editing for some time now - so a week or two isn't going to make a lot of difference. I appreciate that knowing the potential evidence of guilt may be useful in preparing answers, but I think my questions are not that tricky that they actually need context to answer. Please go back and read the three (so far) unanswered questions again since if an answer were to be provided that might shorten the time to my next reply on my own user talk page. Alice✉ 16:17, 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)

I think this can be rapped up right now, if you do not mind me saying. I did not first come to your attention on John’s talk page as you state, you in fact introduced yourself into this long running discussion, and adopted a particular position. I have been civil and reasonable to-date in this discussion, despite your allegations of WP:COI. You have singularly failed to support such an allegation with any supporting diff’s, and have insisted in perpetuating this claim regardless. Having answered your questions in an unequivocal manner BigDunc has been treated to a continuation of claims and accusations, and you have dismissed their posts on your talk page because they had the affront to challenge you. Am I to be treated in the same manner? Now since you are incapable of providing any supporting diff’s to sustain your claims, your questions are moot, and to be blunt, irrelevant. Now rather than engage in circular arguments, either you provide the diff’s to support your accusations or you refrain from posting on my talk page. I do not wish to see one more post which attempts to lend support to an unfounded allegation, or to be asked to defend myself against such a claim. Now since it would appear to be the case that you intend to troll my edits and based on the fact you are not well up on the subject matter I imagine your interest will be purely technical and we will not be treated to long drawn out discussions on subject matter? Once again, do not post on my talk page if it is just to perpetuate unfounded and unsupported allegations. If there is to be a post, it will contain diff’s which support your claim of WP:COI, or it will be removed. --Domer48 (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Dont feed the WP:Troll Domer this editor has not said anything constructive in this discourse except to repeat unsubstantiated accusations against yourself. Her opinion of me is typical trolling, It necessarily involves a value judgement made by one user about the value of another's contribution. And has said she will WP:ABF in regards to my future edits. Her clear POV can be seen here when bringing up the murder of Jean McConville in an unrelated topic BigDunc (talk) 00:28, 23 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)

Domer was not the only one subject to this I got the same treatment but I foolishly AGF answered her question which I had thrown in my face when I disagreed with her on something, so know she has said I am a POV pusher and will WP:ABF on my future edits. So I have all the sympathy for Domer in this too. BigDunc (talk) 23:05, 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)

[edit] John_O'Leary_(poet)

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)

Ah nice one Pádraig, fair play. --Domer48 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Now moved.--Padraig (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redmond referencing

Hi, 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)

Hi Osioni, if you take a look at the Bulmer Hobson Article, as I now understand it, that is the way the article should be referenced? The Source section in down the bottom of the page, and above it is the notes/ references section. In the source section you put all the book details, and the references would containe simply the name of the book or authoe with the page number. First chance I get I will sort this out on the Redmond article if that is any help? --Domer48 (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer and good intentions Sony, I'll try a little home-work on it first myself, then check me out (I see Hobson has also been tagged, by the way !) Osioni (talk) 17:24, 29 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)

[edit] Removing Catholic Category

Can 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)

Hi David please read the category guidline on the top of the Article. I only removed those biography articles, were the person was not notable for their religion. The bio-Articles which are on this article are all notable because of their religion --Domer48 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You may also be intrested in this discussion. --Domer48 (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
While you're doing it, you could quickly look at the articles so you don't miss anything like this ;) One Night In Hackney303 23:36, 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)

You didn't notice the dubious picture in the article?! One Night In Hackney303 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't there a consensus for these categories deletion? Also why do you only remove Irish Catholics and not Irish Anglicans, methodists, etc.? -RiverHockey (talk) 17:46, 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] Edit-warring IP

Hey 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)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for your comments. --MJB (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Feel free to delete this

[edit] User talk:Db10101

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article User talk:Db10101, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1916-1921 club 030.jpg listed for deletion

An 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)

[edit] Stop it please

Cats are grouped by "Mac", regardless of whether the original surname is "Mc". One Night In Hackney303 21:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What sort of spelling is this Macnamee. Should it not be MacNamee?--Domer48 (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter, as it's only used to sort the categories. It could all be in lower case, or MACNaMEe and it would still sort the same way. One Night In Hackney303 21:36, 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)

[edit] Dunmanway

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)

[edit] Of Bans and Flags

Hi 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:

  • "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them."
  • "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves....When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies."
  • "Banned users sometimes return to Wikipedia using another user name. Obvious reincarnations are easily dealt with — the account is blocked and contributions are reverted or deleted"

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)

That’s sound Rock I’ve retreated from that discussion as you may have noticed. Two reasons 1) its going no were in a hurry and anyone involved is on a hiding to nothing, and 2) it goes way deeper than the issue at hand (hence my being ignored). Just looking at it so far the impression I get is that it makes the Troubles ArbCom look like a school boys picnic. This is on a much higher level, and way out of my league. I’ve not long celebrated my first year at wiki (went un-noticed), and spent some time going through the history. I’ve been involved in two detailed ArbCom’s, check usered up the ying yang a number of times and stalk by some serious socks (Mark and Frank that I know of), not to mention RfC’s and all in my first year? With the result I’ve been labelled an edit warrior, POV bandit and once to my amazement an Orangman (go figure). On the issue at hand though, all I was really trying to say was that introducing factual errors or in this case re-introducing them also goes indirectly against policy. The exemption you raised is a good one re BLP and similar to the point I’m making. Clearly though common sense should be used and I don’t think it is really that much of an issue, though a good pretence to settle old scores and dabble in a bit of one up man ship. On the flags issue though, that can and should be addressed. There have been a number of discussions on this, and despite it all the flag still keeps being introduced without any WP:RS to back it up. My view of it now though, is that it is just been done now as a piss take to be perfectly blunt. I have also copped onto something reviewing my edit history, editors who engage in this (a bit like the list of the dead issue) a very clever. By doing what they are doing, they can make good editors look like edit warriors because of reverting them. Any how, I’m just getting back to doing what I originally came her for, which is this. Thanks for the post though, and if I can be of any help let me know, Regards

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)

Rockpocket, reading your comments above and on Astrotrains talk page, I would like to comment on them, on his talkpage your suggested dealing with each case individualy this is not veasible and already been tried, same with the flag mediation, the reason for this is that Astrotrain and other pro Ulster Banner editors has repeatly failed to provide RS to include the use of the banner in templates and articles throughout Wikipedia.
Astrotrains idea of a compromise in the flag mediation amounted to his insistance that the Banner could be used to represent present day Northern Ireland in any circumstance on WP ignoring WP policies on OR, RS and V. When this was rejected he then carried on edit warring on this issue resulting in most effected articles and templates having to be protected by admins, on a number of occassions he then recreated new templates to surpass protection of the originals to continue to push his POV. During the mediation I put forward proposals as to when the Ulster Banner could and should be used in WP, Astrotrain totally rejected that, as he insists the the Ulster Banner is still the un-official flag of Northern Ireland today, that was why the mediation was abandoned as Astrotrain made it clear he would continue to insert the banner whatever the outcome of the mediation.
I have no intention of going through the process of repeating the same arguements again on each article or template as the result will be the same, he will not or cannot provide RS to support his claims, and will only continue to edit war in any case.--Padraig (talk) 20:14, 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)

[edit] Luby

Good work on this article Domer.BigDunc (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, its comming on, just a breif account, will build it up over time with a number of books.--Domer48 (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Books

Got them cheers. Three Men in a Helicopter coming later.... One Night In Hackney303 18:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


The Barnstar of National Merit

Happy belated wiki-birthday. I know we have had our moments, but its clear that you are a fine editor and a credit to this project. When I appear on your talk page it is usually to bitch and moan, but I also am well aware of all the fine articles you have written, particularly on Irish history. I don't know if you accept awards or not (feel free to delete it if you don't), but I think you deserve this.
this WikiAward was given to Domer by Rockpocket on 18:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MacBride/McBride

Domer, 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)

I had to go a long ways back into the history of the Seán MacBride article to find the source of the problem, which was so absurd it does not merit repeating. One of those only-on-Wikipedia compromises that settles a dispute by repeating an error needlessly. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Thomas Clarke Luby

Updated DYK query On 17 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Clarke Luby, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done, and Happy St Patrick's Day! BencherliteTalk 09:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done Domer48.--Padraig (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't know how it happened, but thanks anyway. --Domer48 (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Good man Domer. BigDunc (talk) 12:02, 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)

Thanks very much, nice surprise on the day that’s in it. Today is the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Dublin City council will place a plaque on 16 Fenian Street (originally Lombard Street) later in the year. --Domer48 (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I was reading about that.BigDunc (talk) 12:17, 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)

Hang on I'm the one that gets the DYKs, there may be a copyright problem here..... 22:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You Got Mail

Sent you an email. BigDunc (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link

Could you forward that link we discussed in our previous correspondence thanks. BigDunc (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gah

I 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)

LOL, a rough weekend I'd suggest:)--Domer48 (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tiocfaidh ár lá

Sorry! 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)

No problem Peter, I did check to see if there was an article, spelling was correst, and I got nothing. Still, I stand over my view that there term should be merged. I will have to come up with another example though. Regards, --Domer48 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You left off the 'h' from 'tiocfaidh'. I was actually going to do a similar thing myself. After discovering that 'Tiocfaidh ár lá' was an article I considered using "cherishing all the children of the nation equally". If you Google "cherishing all the children of the nation equally" -proclamation you will get hundreds of results, all of them on-topic, even indeopendently of the Proclamation. But of course it doesn't have an article. I've made my contribution to AfD so you're welcome to use this. Scolaire (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have {{prod}}ed it as you suggested. Scolaire (talk) 09:03, 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)

I haven't, but somebody has LOL. Scolaire (talk) 13:46, 16 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)

[edit] 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)

You are but one of a vast and silent or silenced majority of fine Englishmen. That you use logic, reason and a willingness to investigate the history of Ireland is a testament to the character of most English people I meet. You are by far the most unbiased and even handed of editors on Wikipedia that I have yet come across. It just pissed me off that you should have to waste your time dealing with editors that have no other objective than petty point scoring. Having addressed the issues, they resort to personalising and snipping. The best answer to them is to keep producing the articles you have been, like Strangeways, fair play to yeh. --Domer48 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright enough of the love in :) and back to work.BigDunc (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Kickham

Nice 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)

I have to agree with you about the Mullinahone bit, I might shorten it and place the full account in wikisource. I still have to do O'Leary and Stephens and before I even go near the Confederation Club, I have to do something about the Thomas Davis article. That article is really starting to bother me, and I have tons of stuff on him. So much to do and so little time I'm afraid. Anyhow, thanks for that, take care, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lol Vandalism - don’t make me laugh your an IRA supporter

lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.4.199 (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blockquotes

I 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)

Thanks for that Peter, and like with the Charles Kickham I'm more than willing to take your views in a positive way and act on your suggestions. As you can see on the Roger Casement talk page, I flagged it up the speech in Oct 07, looking for suggestions and got no reply. I agree with all you have suggested above, and also pointed to my own difficulty in how it should be addressed. I hope you agree that I can be reasonable, but just have no time for narrow agendas. I have responded on the Casement article, and have put forward suggestions on the Manchester one. The only problem is, my friend and their well polished chip has no intrest and even less knowledge to be even intresting. As we say, children my play while fools look on --Domer48 (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I really think it's up to you to decide what are the essential points and do the pruning. It seems funny to ask them what they think should stay when you know they don't want any of it. Also, what I say about text in articles applies equally to text in footnotes; I think that just moving the whole lot down into a footnote is not a good solution. Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 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)

[edit] Ulster Defence Regiment

I 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)

[edit] Template:IrishR

Any thoughts on my test version, as explained at Template_talk:IrishR#Green_border? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRA

Please 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)

If as I suggested you read the entire article, why you are persisting in advocating an incorrect piece of information be added to the lead? Domer48 (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Request

Please 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)

I'll use the Article talk page thanks. --Domer48 (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Care to comment

here Giano (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Pat Coogan paragraph in History of the Orange Institution

Hi 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)

[edit] Kevin Barry

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)

I will indeed, I have been down that road and will have no problem walking over old ground.--Domer48 (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tag-teaming on User talk:David Lauder

Ok, 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)

[edit] Ulster Defence Regiment-Heads Up

Can 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)

You also made them to the article, don't ask me to review it and then just put in the changes? Now I'd object to them as poorly written cruft. --Domer48 (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving Article without agreement

Domer, 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)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Corporals killings.JPG

Thanks 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

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

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)

I've amended the image page for you. Hope that's ok. --John (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UDR

Domer 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)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Free the POW's Mural Belfast.JPG

An 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)

[edit] Brian Keenan

I don't understand this edit. IMOS?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake MOS
What part of MOS?Traditional unionist (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, on links. --Domer48 (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how that canges anything. Yes it recommends the clarifications are given in square brackets, and yes it reccomends that links are not generally provided in quotations, but if a clarification has an article which adequatly demonstrates the topic at hand without inserting clarifications, I don;t see why that shouldn;t be done. That is a bit of a bloggers perspective I suppose, but I don;t think the suggetion is any less valid for that.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UDR

Hi Domer. What was this about? --John (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi John, read the talk page, its full of reasons. Thanks.--Domer48 (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Summarise them for me in one sentence, please. --John (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

one sentence.--Domer48 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)