Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment/Archive 2

Terms of editing
Participants agree to the following terms of editing:
 * I agree that, until further notice, I will not edit articles that the other participants have edited prior to 5 November.
 * I further agree to discuss any issues or concerns I have with other participants here.

If all 4 editors taking part in this mediation agree I will agree. BigDunc Talk 16:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. David Underdown (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Thunderer (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I Agree: -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc has broken the terms of the agreement here.
 * not edit articles that the other participants have edited prior to 5 November.-- Domer48 'fenian'  23:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had edited the article on several occasions prior to 5th November.Thunderer (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I only revert one edit here on the article per "Don't let superfluous or badly written material stand in order to avoid slighting its original author. Though your intentions may be good, doing so shirks your duty to the reader." Why revert it back for the second time here breeching the AE imposed 1RR sanction?. Now look at what I reverted? I replaced referenced text, which was free from spelling mistakes, and it was replaced again with unreferenced text complete with mistakes. That is called a blind revet, why would you do that? -- Domer48 'fenian'  23:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because we all agreed not to edit articles the others had edited before 5th Nov.Thunderer (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly if you are all are courting a topic ban from these articles, you're headed the right direction. BigDunc, Domer even a glance at the history of the page shows that Thunderer has edited the article before, in fact, his edits are the majority of those on the first page - there is no reason that you should have edited that page. Thunderer, even if they are violating this agreement, that's not acceptable as the only reason for reverting their changes. Shell   babelfish 23:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Shell I don't believe I would be subject to a topic ban in view of the agreement above. I have stuck to it faithfully.   As you noted, the RUC article was already in my area of interest; that being unit histories, particularly Irish military and police forces.Thunderer (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, but it was not Dunc who broke the terms of the agreement, but you here today? If you decided that you did not think this affected you, what are the rest of us to think? -- Domer48 'fenian'  23:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Domer, I don't see off hand where another participant had edit that article prior to Nov 5th. Do you have a diff handy for that? Shell   babelfish 23:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree Shell. I don't see any editing on the North Irish Horse by any other participants here.  Perhaps you can enlighten us on what you contributed to the article Domer?Thunderer (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Shell as you can quite clearly see, I edited the article, and who was the first editor in behind me? But if you want a diff here thats for the 6 Nov. -- Domer48 'fenian'  23:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No Domer, we can't see anything contributed to that article by you.Thunderer (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well this might help here, and on the diff above this one, Thunderer you are well aware of WP:IMOS and you reverted anyway. Yet another policy which dose not affect you? -- Domer48 'fenian'  23:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do apologise Domer, but those diffs are for the RUC article which I have contributed to before 5th Nov. what I'm really after is a diff which shows your contributions to the North Irish Horse article before 5th November?Thunderer (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you never edited it before the 5 Nov, I edited on the 6 Nov here and who was the first one in after me? -- Domer48 'fenian'  00:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem I'm seeing here Domer is that there was actually no change of content on your diff.Thunderer (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Domer, I think you may have misunderstood the agreement above, in order to avoid shutting out too many articles, the agreement was not to edit any articles that someone else had edited before November 5th. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish


 * Thunderer, I would also like to point out that in the case of the North Irish Horse article, while you did not technically violate the agreement, you certainly violated the spirit. You did not have any edits to the article prior to it being edited by another participant.  The spirit of this agreement is to stop further flare ups until all of you are able to work together harmoniously. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, this blame game is completely unhelpful to the situation. None of you behaved optimally in this situation, but Domer and BigDunc, your edits to Royal_Ulster_Constabulary were completely out of bounds. Whether or not your intentions were good, editing that article, outside the agreement might lead others to believe you were following someone's edits or deliberately being provocative. Remember, its important to discuss things here and maintain the agreements on behavior that have been set out. Lets pull back, stop pointing fingers at each other and take a bit more care not to have this situation occur again. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not pointing fingers at anyone Shell. I know we have an agreement and was trying to stick to the letter of it which is why I reverted D and BD at RUC.   I did not provocatively edit the NiH article.  I can't see any contributions made to it by BD or D and certainly nothing before 5th Nov on either of them.  To be honest the areas of interest are markedly different here so even if BD and D started editing new articles today I doubt they would be of anything more than passing interest to me unless they were military or police articles.  I would certainly believe it provocative of me were I to enter their areas of interest at this juncture.  I hope everyone can stop to think about this and try and act in a considerate manner towards each other from this point onwards - that is my intention in any case.  Shalom.Thunderer (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the proposed terms are unworkable if editors are going to make drastic changes to articles and say "you're not allowed to edit that, you've not edited it before." For example, if I go off an edit an article none have edited, any of the editors can come along and revert me, and because its "not" before the 5 Nov its ok? Now I went on to this article here as part of a number of WP:IMOS edits, which my contrabutions show, so thats what brought me there. Why Thunderer were you the very next editor in there?

Shell what about your comments "Again, this blame game is completely unhelpful to the situation." It dose seem to me that blame is only going one way? Now if you would like me to support that with diff's, I will. Your constant blaming is not helpful in my opinion? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Domer, I'll try and explain properly. I had no intentions of breaching our agreement.  Firstly I didn't notice that you had made the Londonderry to Derry change when I started today.  Secondly the change was made after 5th November and our agreement is specific on that.  Thirdly, even if I had noticed this before you didn't actually make any contributions to the article whereas it is firmly in my declared area of interest and I have been making historical contributions to it today from the regimental history.   That's really the long and short of it - there was certainly no provocation or harm intended. I hope you can move on from this and get down to proper discussion on the mediation following this.   I will stick to the letter of the agreement and do nothing provocative.Thunderer (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Shell's advice should be taken to heart. One gets the distinct impression that you lot just want to game and fight. Would you be able to now switch to something more productive? Domer, I spent some time earlier today responding to a question posed by you in the "Comment" section which you originated. Would you please respond to that? Thunderer, I am about to ask you another question in the "Content guidelines" section. I have also put some issues for discussion in the section on Dave's examples. Let's try to stop this continual bickering. Govern yourselves as best you can on the editing guidelines and PLEASE resist the temptation to game each other and the mediators. It gives us the impression that gaming is the only reason you are here — and I'm sure that cannot be true. ;-) Sunray (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to game Sunray. I took action to correct a breach of the agreement above is all.   I have made no breaches myself or done anything which could be misconstrued as provocative or gaming.  I'm sorry if it appears otherwise.Thunderer (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am glad to hear you say that you are not here to game. However, I am defining what you lot have been doing as playing a game. Sorry, I read Eric Berne's Games People Play during my formative years and it influenced me terminally. Berne originated the term transactional analysis. You would be surprised to know what that reveals about your interactions. But we won't go there. Let's focus on working together productively. There is a fair amount of time and effort invested in this and the community is watching. Sunray (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There has perhaps been a misunderstanding and my swift and radical action may not have suited everyone. I can understand Domer's worry that my editing the North Irish Horse article could be misconstrued as a breach of the agreement but it is plain that Domer has not actually contibuted there and his very minor change was made on 6th Nov.   The article is clearly in my area of interest, it has been neglected for some time and I felt that it was prudent to spend some time on it as I see it as non-controversial.  Likewise I have been contributing to the RUC and RIC articles for some time due to the acquisition of books on the subject.  Both could do with some tarting up.  I started on them then felt that the editing could be misconstrued as provocative which is why I moved onto the NiH which I have real life links to and a great interest in.Thunderer (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Can I ask BigDunc not to edit the Royal Ulster Constabulary article any further please. It would be nice to move on from this.Thunderer (talk) 14:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No as long as you are blindly reverting without even looking at the reversion you are doing it contains spelling mistakes look at it BigDunc  Talk 14:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We've all agreed not to edit BD.  We can sort all that out after we've completed this mediation.  It's been there for months so it's not going to do it any harm to sit there for another few days.  Let's get stuck into this rather than squabbling.Thunderer (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunc, I don't understand why you were editing this article, Having done so clearly violates our agreed on Terms of editing. Thunderer, you also violated the agreement by stepping in. Let's make this the last time this happens. No further discussion needed. Sunray (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed edits that violate the Guidelines for interaction Sunray (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The North Irish Horse article which formed part of this discussion was raised from "stub class" to "B Class" after two days of hard typing.Thunderer (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And as expected the first action by editors in this mediation is to step in and tag the article as unreliable and needing more sources.  Rather provocative don't you think to follow another editor around like that?Thunderer (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The North Irish Horse article which formed part of this discussion was raised from "stub class" to "B Class" after two days of hard typing.Thunderer (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And as expected the first action by editors in this mediation is to step in and tag the article as unreliable and needing more sources.  Rather provocative don't you think to follow another editor around like that?Thunderer (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that having been offered advice here by a mediator, Thunderer chose to ignore it. Having noticed only one source being used I indicated this by placing a tag for this exact purpose, and explained this in my edit summary here. I felt the responce and removal here to be total wrong, as it completly lacks the assumption of goog faith on my behalf. It is my opinion, based as it is on the UDR article, that the standard being appllied is a cause of concern. The UDR article recived a "B Class" despite the breeches of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and a clear case of WP:OWN. I consider the edit I made was in good faith, and the reaction was not called for. This goes against all we are trying to achive here in my opinion and is regretful. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  14:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * B-class requires only that "major points are cited", so the fact that there are some citation needed tags remaining is not surprising. Work would need to be done on a variety of aspects of the NIH article to move it on to GA status.  If Thunderer was in breach of the spirit of the agreement, I'd tend to think you were too-slapping on a tag like that does seem to me to go against the other provisions about not needling each other.  I suppose I'm actually now potentially in breach having actually done something constructive, and found a source to enable one of those tags to be removed.  David Underdown (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I feel you are in breech David of our agreed terms, and not because you found a source. I don't think you have assumed good faith on my part. Is posting a tag which reads "This article needs additional citations for verification" not constructive? Now if Thunderer considers my edit needling, I would have to ask why? David if you read my Edit Summary "Relies almost completely on one book, needs additional citations for verification" at no time do I mention citation needed tags. I did not and was not "slapping" on a tag as you suggest, I simply "place" at tag and explained why. None of this however excuses the responce, and yet you neglect to mention it? -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  15:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I obviously failed to make my point clearly, and I should have addressed Thunderer's subsequent behaviour as well, true, which was equally unhelpful. No doubt you meant well, but this is part of the issue, we all need to think beyond our immediate reactions, was the tag justified, quite possibly, was it, given your previous interactions actually likely to improve matters, no I don't think it was.  Just because you could tag it didn't mean you had to.  I mentioned the fact tags, because you appeared to have made a comparison with the UDR article needing better verification.  Again you are asking questions of others, rather than more closely examining what you actually did.  In principle, tags should always be justified on the talk page, not just with an edit summary.  I see constructive as actively trying to find additional references, generic placing of tags, with no other action on the article is viewed by many, not just me, as not actually being particularly constructive in the long-run, and in these particular circumstances, with these particular editors involved had predictable consequences.  You've pointed Thunderer to other statements by the mediators, and that's essentially what I was trying to do with you.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  David Underdown (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are ten different sources used. As well as pipelinks to other web pages.   I'm fully aware the article needs more references but as it stands it's good enough for B Class and I don't feel that it needed a tag for the whole article.  Milhist were kind enough to tag what they wanted to see reffed and that really was good enough for me to further the project.  I felt that D tagging the entire article was wikistalking and I don't think we need to create feelings like that amongst ourselves as the moment.  I do appreciate you going in DAvid and providing another source and sorting out West's order of decorations - how I missed that I'll never know. Thunderer (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Domer48 your edited to the North Irish Horse article here. was I see this as a clear violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Terms of Editing. The terms are in place to prevent just this sort of bickering. Moreover, since placement of the tag was appears to be provocative, it's removal by Thunderer was justified. I'm not sure why David got involved, but I can see that he did what he did in good faith. I will speak to him separately about it. Domer, what can you now do to reaffirm your commitment to this mediation? Sunray (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It is my firmly held view that I did not breech the terms. It is also my opinion that the placing of the tag was not provocative, but was interpreted that way, in itself an assumption of bad faith. Its removal was justified as my rational was correct, its removal and edit summary was provocative an uncivil.

Sunray's comments in blue.
 * You are technically correct that you did not violate the Terms of Editing. HOWEVER, those terms are in place to stop edit conflicts between participants in this mediation. Why would you edit an article that Thunderer was working on? How could your edit today be within the spirit of the Terms of Editing?


 * I'm correct, and not technically correct, I did not violate the Terms of Editing. I know why the terms are in place, and again I did not edit an article that Thunderer was working, I made a minor edit to the article on 6 November which was prior to Thunderer's first edit. I accept your apologies, and I'm willing to move on from it. I've given my views on the Terms of Editing above and no one has responded. I can not accept that I'm being uncivil, and no Diff has being offered to support this. All I'm being given is an opinion, and as such it is reasonable to disagree. As to dealing with Thunderer's actions, is all well and good, I'm concerned that it was my edit alone which was raised here, and again this is not the first time. Would it be possible to please remember to use the "I" messages, having followed the advice given, all responces given to me have been "you" this and "you" that. While I to am frustrated, I have not allowed it to affect my objectivity, and I remain positive and commited to the process of mediation. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  08:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Domer: Perhaps I wasn't clear about violating the spirit of the Terms. As Shell said, above: "The spirit of this agreement is to stop further flare ups until all of you are able to work together harmoniously." The letter of the agreement is that participants agree not to "not edit articles that the other participants have edited prior to 5 November." We have already established that Thunderer violated the letter of the agreement. We have also established that North Irish Horse was not an article that you regularly edit. You had one minor edit prior to 5 Nov. Shell said that while T. violated the letter of the Terms, he did not violate their spirit (since one minor edit does not really qualify as "an article edited by other participants"). You on the other hand, placed a "refimprove" tag on the article after T. had extensively edited it and had announced that it had been rated B-Class. I am saying that, IMO, this violates the spirit of the agreement. I'm not repeating this to quibble. I want it to be clear. If you still disagree with me, then I am willing to continue discussing it, because I think it is important. But I would (of course) prefer that you accept what I am saying and move on.


 * [I am responding to each of your points here and now, as you have frequently said that you did not receive a response to things you have said]. No it is not the first time that I have dealt with your actions first and not someone else's (although, in this case, I did come back to both Thunderer and David to make a comment on their actions). There is a reason why I have done that more than once with you.


 * You go on to say: "Would it be possible to please remember to use the "I" messages, having followed the advice given, all responses given to me have been 'you' this and 'you' that." I assume you are addressing this to me. I'm far from perfect on I-messages. But, hey, it is not taught at school and we learn, in the playground and on the street, to interact in less considerate ways. But I think you may be confusing the use of the word "you" with a you-message. If I am giving you feedback, I have to use the word "you." From the primer referred to above:
 * Here is an example of the difference between a “you” message and an “I” message:
 * “You” message: “You selfish jerk! You think the TV belongs to you. Well, it’s my turn now.”
 * “I” message: “I feel annoyed when you switch the channel without asking. I want to be able to watch my show all the way through.”


 * My final comment on all this is to say that your style makes it difficult to always provide diffs. I've provided diffs to you, but you reject what I am saying as "opinion." This doesn't make me want to continue giving examples. Nevertheless, I've gotten to know something about your strengths and weaknesses, and if you want more feedback, just ask — if you're not prepared to receive it, there will be little point in continuing, that approach though. Sunray (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sunray, I’ve given my reasons for placing the tag. David has accepted my motivation and agreed I was probably right. It is important that we assume good faith, and I intend to. On the issue of civility, I have also given my opinion, and disagree that asking for clarity is uncivil, so we can agree to disagree. I'm willing to move on now as illustrated by the discussion on the "Consensus building excerise" and I'm content to leave it at that. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  23:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I have raised the issue of mediators pointing the finger and attributing blame already in this discussion, and it appears to be happening again. Like David Sunray, why neglect to mention Thunderers incivility. Sunray even if Thunderers actions were correct, it dose not justify their comments. David initially assumed bad faith, however David was gracious enough to say in their next post that “No doubt I meant well” and “quite possibly the tag was justified.”


 * I fully intend to deal with Thunderer's actions. Whether or not the tag was justified is not at issue, as far as I am concerned.

It is also disappointing that the advice of Shell here was completely disregarded, having pointed out that while Thunderer did not technically violate the agreement, by editing the article they certainly violated the spirit. That Thunderer then continued to edit the article, regardless is a concern to me.


 * Part of the intent of the agreement is to allow participants to continue editing Irish articles as long as such editing does not bring them into conflict with another participant. Do we need to be considering a change to the Terms?

Considering Thunderer had never edited the article until I went onto it, my edit was not “a clear violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Terms of Editing,” which is supported by both the article page history and this very discussion. Personally I find Sunrays last comment in the above post particularly perplexing when my constructive, positive and active participation in this mediation is being called into question.


 * Again, you are technically correct. You made a minor edit to the article on 6 November which was prior to Thunderer's first edit. My apologies.

Having refrained from using the word “you” I now find it being directed at me? Not one editor in this discussion has been able to provide me with one diff of incivility by me on either the UDR article the subject of this mediation or on this discussion. All that has been put forward is the suggestion that because I ask a question, or ask for a comment to be clarified I’m being uncivil? While I’m having to deal with incivility and my good faith questioned I finding the tone being displayed very objectionable. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  21:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded to the request you made for examples of your incivility here. I also asked for a reply from you and have received none until now.


 * I don't think that this mediation is working. I'm frustrated that you don't see when you act in an uncivil manner and don't respond to my examples. I am concerned that the spirit of the Terms we have agreed to is continually tested or violated. Would you be able to suggest ways that we might turn this around? Sunray (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sunray I have no problems with David Underwood editing any military article I work on. He's a good solid Milhist editor and has been providing me with much needed assistance as I try to master the art of creating good unit histories in the style the wiki needs.   I am slightly perplexed at Domer's intervention but it's not the end of the world.  I can certainly forgive and forget in the expectation of this mediation producing a better relationship between all of us. Thunderer (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * David has signed on as a participant in this mediation. Thus, he needs to abide by the Terms of Editing. BTW, quite apart from the issue of who should, or should not, be editing the N. Irish Horse article, Thunderer, I am concerned about the edit summary you made when you reverted Domer. You said: "rubbish - it's been brought up to B Class and work is still being done on it as per req by milhist - go pull the legs off spiders or something." What are going to do to curb such statements. Sunray (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been told to stop pointing the finger yet not a word is said to Thunderer when he ridicules and threatens me, and points the finger, yet Domer is told it is not civil to ask a question. David seems only to have eyes for what Domer and Myself have done and seems to miss anything by Thunderer. Only diffs in his opening statement are about myself and Domer. He too broke the agreement he edited an article that was supposed to be out of bounds. Thunderer reverts to versions of articles with spelling mistakes against the duties of editors to correct mistakes. And then continues to edit an article that he was told was in breach of the spirit of the agreement still nothing said. This doesn't seem like a level playing field to me. Also if David is allowed to edit articles you have edited the so are Domer and myself. BigDunc  Talk 21:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware I had edited anything which was out of bounds. Would you be kind enough to refresh me please?Thunderer (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ...while you did not technically violate the agreement, you certainly violated the spirit. You did not have any edits to the article prior to it being edited by another participant. The spirit of this agreement is to stop further flare ups until all of you are able to work together harmoniously. Shell babelfish 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC) BigDunc  Talk 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't follow. I haven't edited any article which violates the agreement, or the spirit of it. Would you be kind enough to let me know if I'm labouring under a misapprehension here - have I indeed strayed onto another editor's patch inadvertantly, could you tell me which article it was please? Thunderer (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dunc, each participant is responsible for his own actions. The mediator's are dealing with violations of policies or agreements. How could you participate in this mediation in a more positive way. You folks have an opportunity to get feedback and assistance from the mediators, but you seem unwilling or unable to benefit from this. Sunray (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You tell me how I can contribute in a more positive way. Because I am at a loss as to know what to do here. What do you want from me? I am curious too, you say you are dealing with Thunderers actions. Will this be done here? BigDunc  Talk 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We need some positive input from participants now. This is your mediation. What can you do to get something out of it? What can we do to get beyond having these discussions about whether, and how, participants are violating the terms and continuing their conflict on this page?
 * Deal with violations or at least be seen to be. BigDunc  Talk 20:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Simply put, each participant needs to stop any blaming of each other, pointing fingers or turning on the mediators instead of dealing with your collective behavior. Either try avoiding each other completely on all articles for a bit or stop getting defensive and assuming the worst when one of the other participants shows up at an article you're editing or have edited before.  Learn to work with each other instead of against each other.  Try joining in some of the discussions below and work together constructively. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish 00:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary of concerns in implementing Terms of Editing
Despite that fact that all participants agreed to the Terms, we have had daily conflicts on articles relating to Northern Ireland. Some questions arise:
 * 1) Do we need to tighten up the wording of the terms? If so, how? If not, what can be done to prevent these outbursts?
 * 2) How could participants work together more positively on this page ?
 * 3) Would a small project be a good way of beginning to work together?
 * 4) If so what are some suggestions?

One thing we could try is to work through something like Domer's example in response to Dave (see "Edit break" section, above). Let us know if you would like to deal with this, or if you have some other ideas. Sunray (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no further ideas.  I have done nothing on the other participants.  I have edited an article in good faith and raised it to B Class.  Domer did not edit the article per se he made a change from Londonderry to Derry which I didn't notice when I started work on the stub article.  The change was innacurate in my opinion in any case because of the time frame in the article.  That particular row didn't really start until the Unionists had lost power in Derry, sometime in the 80's I think?  I've not been editing any articles which might annoy the other participants and just ask for the same respect in return.Thunderer (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer could you please read WP:IMOS, it has nothing to do with when Unionists had lost power in Derry. Sunray I've raised the issue (see "Edit break" section, above) below, and imput is welcome. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  09:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read the piece and it is by no means a complete guideline or gospel on the naming convention. I have no objections to either term but insist upon using Derry from the mid eighties onwards which brings me into conflict with those who disagree with that.  Prior to 1984 and certainly in the 1900-1950 period the name wasn't really an issue so I try not to make it one.Thunderer (talk) 11:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer the WP:IMOS is quite clear, Derry = City, and Londonderry = County. So while insisting to be wrong is all well and good, doing it on articles is disruptive. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  13:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't Domer. It says that was "adopted as a compromise by many users".  It also says "The naming dispute can be discussed in the articles when appropriate."   It is not a rule or policy.  My view is that prior to Derry City Council voting to rename the city as Derry it should be known and referred to as Londonderry except where a source is being quoted.   In working practice it is inevitable that army regiments will use the term Londonderry as they are official state forces, so we mustn't try to change that.  Were I working on a Nationalist oriented article however I would use the name Derry for both city and county.  That's my compromise. Thunderer (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Thunderer "My view is." Consensus can change and can change through consensus. The consensus now is that Derry = City, and Londonderry = County. The reason for this is "To avoid constant renaming of articles (and more), keep a neutral point of view, promote consistency in the encyclopedia, and avoid Stroke City-style terms perplexing to those unfamiliar with the dispute..." This has beed [discussed] and even has its own article Derry/Londonderry name dispute. "The naming dispute can be discussed in the articles when appropriate." Place a proposel on the WP:IMOS talk page and have it discussed there. -- <strong style="color:#009900;">Domer48 <sub style="color:#006600;">'fenian'  20:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thunderer, Domer is correct in this situation and is already pointing you at a consensus - it doesn't matter whether something is called a policy, guideline or essay, all of these reflect a consensus that the community has developed and you are expected to follow them. Please do not revert any more edits from other participants, especially just because you feel they broke the agreement.  This is not only completely against policy, it is obviously damaging our ability to work here and creating more bad feelings. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC"  color="#2B0066">Shell   babelfish 00:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)