User talk:Domer48/Archive 11

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)

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)

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. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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, 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, Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:John
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)

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)

Peadar Clancy
I see that I may have misjudged you; if so, I apologise.  A l i c e  ✉ 08:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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.  A l i c e  ✉ 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.  A l i c e  ✉ 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.  A l i c e  ✉ 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.  A l i c e  ✉ 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.  A l i c e  ✉ 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)

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)

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  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)

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 Hackney  303  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 Hackney  303  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-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. Rockpock e  t  08:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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

User talk:Db10101
Another editor has added the  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 What Wikipedia is not and 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  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)