Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:17, 20 June 2008

• Pádraig, Rest In Peace a chara - sorely missed - not to be forgotten.

Not in the mood today, due to the obvious reason outlined above.--Domer48 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Today is 8 January 2025

Archives
Archive 1 - February 2007 to December 2007 Archive 2 - Jan 2008 to December 2008 Archive 3

Useful links

3RR Irish Manual of Style MOS & Policy : 3RR ~ AGF ~ CITE ~ Warning templates ~ CIV ~ CON ~ DP ~ DR ~ EQ ~ Fallacies ~ NOR ~ NOT ~ NPA ~ NPOV ~ POINT ~ RS ~ TOPIC ~ V ~ WP:ATT ~ WP:SYN ~ Deletion Policies ~ WP:HOWTO ~ WEASEL

Regimental History

I have those pages scanned and ready to go. I need an e-mail address though. Could you reply to my internal e-mail to you please?GDD1000 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Irish Famine

Domer, I'm sorry, but I've got to tell you that you're fairly close to a page ban on Great Irish Famine. All you've been doing is revert, revert, revert. Please refrain from making reverts to the article for the time being. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Ryan, but it is obvious to anyone who cares to read the discussion that I discussed, reverted, discussed reverted, discussed, discussed, discussed, and reverted. Now has my conduct been disruptive? I don't think it has, but I welcome any advice on how to move forward. Thanks for the advice though, is very welcome, --Domer48 (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

One more revert, or anything resembling a revert, and you will be page banned. Ways to move forward? Mediation, request for comments, third opinion, build a new lead from scratch ... but definitely no more reverts please. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Angusmclellan you will of course show good cause, and it would be helpful to indicate what I'm actually doing wrong? Have I breached any of our policies or guidlines? Have I not discussed all the changes? --Domer48 (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting is covered by Misplaced Pages:Edit war. As for Asmaybe (talk · contribs), we'll see. Thank you for the documentation. However, it is not up to me or Daniel or Ryan to decide on content. If you feel that people are straying away from what the sources actually said, as well as the talk page there is mediation, a request for comments, a third opinion, and all the various noticeboards. There's even one on "original research" these days. There is no need to get bogged down in argument. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration has little or nothing to do with content, which would include discussions of page naming, except where there are policy issues involved. No original research has quite a narrow meaning. It does not include "I don't think that the source says what you think it does" disputes. You should be able to work those out on your own. As for the name, the likelihood of the current name being kept seems close to zero. I suggest you look for a second-best choice. As for the rest, try dispute resolution. Edit warring will get you (and anyone else who does it) banned from the page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Domer48, I need to apologise to you for deleting your recent comments from my talk page. I was doing two or three things at once and also was carrying on two other WP conversations at the same time, and for some reason I thought your comments there were made by User:BigDunc, who I was talking with on a different page. (Must be the capital "D" in the name or something...) Your comment there was almost identical to one the other user had just made to me seconds before elsewhere, and I thought he was just copying his message onto my talk page so I knew about it, so I deleted it b/c I was fine to have the conversation where it was ongoing elsewhere. (If that makes sense ... — if not, just please accept my apology for deleting your comment; it wasn't intended to be a rejection of you or your comments, which I can understand it may have appeared to be. Good Ol’factory 09:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Then again, now that I review it, it was you that made the comment, but it was just on User:BigDunc's talk page, and I didn't realise it was you and not BigDunc responding. Hence my confusion. Anyway, see above for the apology. Good Ol’factory 09:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

A user requested a third opinion, but referenced this page. Where is the dispute, and can a 3O help? --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that can help is a liberal application of cluestick to the other editor, since he has not even read the article with the purported dispute. Domer48 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. 3O is probably not an option. I'll record it as participants don't agree to 3O. thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem ;) --Domer48 (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the user who requested a third opinon...are you all pro-IRA and in league with each other for God's sake.Crieff (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please. Just try to assume a little good faith on the part of other editors here. Discuss the issues with the article, and suggest changes by all means, but leave the personal attacks out of it. Consider this a formal warning - Alison 22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to argue my case by asking him directly on his talk page why he has repeatedly removed my addition to the IRA page (which is factual based - the IRA being a "paramilitary" organisation and not "military" one, with the latter being officially sanctioned by a country or government, and the former not), deleted my addition to the IRA talk page asking why it was not accepted (and I assure you I was not in for the personal attacks at this stage). I requested a third opinion (As you saw) but the user deleted my contribution toward it (as it was I who suggested it), said the third opinion wasn't needed, forget about etc, and the other moderated agreed. His reasoning for deleting it was listed as "nonscence"(sic), which in addition to being spelled wrong, is also UNTRUE. I mean, what is this a joke? If you don't see this, then I guess you really have taken it upon yourselves to turn what was supposed to be an open source of information into just another propaganda machine.Crieff (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that it is clear that the third opinion is for the IRA page, I can take a look there. Discussion regarding the 3O should be ther only and not here. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Philip, please stop changing the policy

You wrote in the history of WP:V "Philip, please stop changing the policy, "Putting back the seperation of paragraphs" did not mention removing text"

Please explain which word you think I removed with this edit and this comment "Putting back the seperation of paragraphs" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

ETA logo copyvio

Domer, I think this is the second time you say that the image NoETA.jpg doesn't respect copyright policies, or that it violates any copyright. I've opened a section in the image's talk page, so I kindly ask you to explain there in detail why do you think that. ETA's logo doesn't have any copyright, as I try to explain in there. Thank you, Escorial82 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger: the "favourite hate" name poll

You participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You're blocked for 31 hours, or until you apologise unreservedly for repeatedly calling Colin4C (talk · contribs) a liar, whichever is the lesser. No warnings? You know well enough what is and isn't acceptable, and Scolaire and Wotapalaver had already pointed out that this is not acceptable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You want me to apologise unreservedly? I'm not apologising for the truth. Shall I be diplomatic and say "Colin4C has presistently said a source says x when it says nothing of the sort", isn't that just a polite way of saying the exact same thing? Domer48 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be acceptable, yes. "Colin4C says <some book> says <something> but it says <something else>" is civil. "Blah is a liar" is incivil unless there is clear and compelling evidence that it is true, and that evidence doesn't exist here because you are arguing about how to paraphrase and summarise. Have a nice weekend, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Since blocks are preventative not punitive I refuse to apologise for anything said, but I will not use those particular words in future therefore I should be unblocked forthwith. Domer48 (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Blocks are preventative and not punitive but Angus's request was a reasonable one and by declining it you don't leave me with the impression that you've internalized his advice to you. Take all the time you need to do so, but I'm afraid I don't think an unblock is merited. Sorry. — John (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

No offence John, but you're hardly impartial are you? Domer48 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh? How do you mean? --John (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, if Domer says he won't comment on any editor for the rest of the block, keeping him blocked would be punitive. One just has to look at the talk page to see that WP:AGF has not been shown to Domer from other editors on the page and the blatant stonewalling and antagonism that he has to put up with when asking a simple request of providing a reference. BigDunc 18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

As a matter of principle, I'm not apologising for speaking the truth. As I pledge to make no comments about any other editor for the duration of the block, the block is now rendering solely punitive and therefore a breach of the blocking policy for me to remain blocked. Domer48 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As a matter of principle. Consider it educational, not punitive. --jpgordon 18:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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