User talk:Domer48: Difference between revisions

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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:43, 12 October 2008

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

26 + 6 = 1

This User knows that Ireland is one country

Today is 26 May 2024

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

3RR

You seem to be intent on starting an edit war you are well aware of the rule if you continue you will be reported and blocked. BigDunc^Talk 19:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your right of course, really stupid of me. I'll refrain from editing the article and ask for third party opinion. Thanks for that.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under normal circumstances 3RR acts as a deterrent, but it depends on how and who applies it. Some suggest 3RR is an electric fence, others, well:

18 May 3RR report by GDD1000

1 August 3RR report (no action)

9 August 3RR report (decline)

13 August 3RR report (final warned)

14 August 3RR report (page-protected)

Notice how on the 13 August report I’m told that no current warning was given? That’s strange since no current warning is needed, only for the editor to be aware of the rule? Now the accusation is made that I was tag-teaming the editor, but I had not edited this article since the 24 July?

Despite the final warning, however, they still don’t get blocked. Well they were, but then they were unblocked because the blocking admin did not see the entire situation?. Which was?

Now what are editors having to deal with, well for example on newspapers: now we can’t use this, despite it being well true?

(edit summary) they want to word it their way?

Darn papers again? I used both an English and Irish paper.

Now some papers are fine, the Belfast Telegraph for example

And even Republican one, if just to make a point 83-86, 93-96, I did not add any of them.

For riveting discussions here is a good example. And as for reasons to revert here is one. The reason I’ve used this example is, if you have been reading this it will look familiar as they did not like it then either.

On sources some must be taken as gospel. Regardless of what anyone says. While other are well, of no consequence. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Defence Regiment

This article has now been fully protected for a week due to your edit-warring. Please take the matter to the talk page. You've been here long enough to understand how the process work, and edit-warring to get your POV across will not work and will just get you blocked - Alison ^❤ 20:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To get my POV across. I've been on the talk page, and not a peep at of you. Take it to the Troubles ArbCom? Because your one sided opinion is getting boring. If you make an accusation, try back it up for once. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why's your name in the edit history today, so? - Alison ^❤ 20:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you Domer I to get a edit war warning when all I am doing is removing unsourced material like I said I would on the talk page. It appears some editors can do as they feel.BigDunc^Talk 20:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back up your accusation, point to were I'm putting in "MY POV"? I've used that talk page by the book. Not once have I commented on the other editor during the discussions. Dispite the accusations being made left right and center. I have chose to ignore them. I have focused on the edits and the edits only. Now any time your asked a question you run off. There is still outstanding questions you never answered, the last time you accused me of something. So point to the diff or run off again. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And while your looking for them difs Alison could you get my ones too. BigDunc^Talk 20:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've ask ANI, see what run around I get now? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring: Ulster Special Constabulary; third 3rr violation.. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr^\ talk / 22:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear. Well, I guess that settles that then, Domer. Honestly guys, quit tag-teaming Thunderer (I know you're both at it). That's you also, Dunc. C'mon, and less of the abusive sockery charges. Checkuser clearly states that this guy is not an abusive sockpuppeteer - Alison ^❤ 00:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say, I'm pretty disappointed over this. You both were managing to work together and I go off-line for 24 hrs and suddenly we are back to accusations of sockpuppetry and tag-teaming? As you can see, it didn't get either of you anywhere and, to boot, it resulted in a protected article so I can continue the copy-editing I was doing. Great stuff from both of you. Rockpocket 01:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison spare me. Tag-teaming! That is one piss poor excuse! Is that really the best you've got? Now I'll raise your Checkuser at ANI when the block expires. You can't back up your accusations when asked, but you can come on here with this crap. Rock, you were doing a good job, keep at it. Use the edit requests. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot believe this. Sufferin' s*** Sarah777 (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I opened a sock report here, with cleaar evidence that the editors were one in the same. A Checkuser was carried out and closed by the same Checkuser? Result, "checkuser shows no evidence of abusive sock-puppetry." GDD1000 with a major conflict of interest first started causing major disruption on the Wikipedia article on his former regiment in April. After causing large amounts of disruption with his POV pushing, use of unreliable sources, additions of vast amounts of copyright violations to articles and so on, GDD1000 stop editing in late May. Alison gave this editor a clean start under a new name, and has deceive other editors by allowing them to edit the same article pretending to be a brand new editor. Now the use of the term tag-teamed has been put about quite alot. It's a red-herring, and not one diff to support it. I request to be un-blocked to pursue this matter. Since the block was correct and warranted, I will not for the period of one week edit any article on wiki, confining myself to ANI and following any advice offered. In addition, I will not post to any editors talk page other than my own.

Decline reason:

No. You edited disruptively, were blocked, now you are requesting an unblock, throwing wild accusations here and there? I'm afraid that unblocking you will lead to further disruption and flamewar. As such, declined. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Throwing wild accusations" despite no discussion having yet taken place? Your opinion is my unblock will “lead to further disruption and flamewar?” Based on what, your initial accusation? I request to be un-blocked to pursue this matter, confining myself to ANI and following any advice offered. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Now the use of the term tag-teamed has been put about quite alot. It's a red-herring, and not one diff to support it. I request to be un-blocked to pursue this matter. Since the block was correct and warranted, I will not for the period of one week edit any article on wiki, confining myself to ANI and following any advice offered. In addition, I will not post to any editors talk page other than my own. Since my previous request was declined because of wild accusations, I wish to pursue the matter through the proper channels. Since blocks are preventative, no punitive, I’ve indicated my intension to address my behaviour in a constructive way, in an attempt to remove the cause of contention.

Decline reason:

This is arrent wikilawyering. You have a history of edit warring and clearly were engaged in the same on this occasion. You muts know that 3RR is a bright line that must not cross. You did, you got blocked. Congratulations. If you have any issues that you want to address you are welcome to do this after your block expires but shortening this block will only encourage you to continue this behaviour that precipitated a general edit war on an article covered by an arbitration committee probation. Instead of casting wild accusations you would be as well to take the time off to consider how you could have handled the situation better. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

You muts know that 3RR is a bright line that must not cross?

1 August 3RR report (no action)

9 August 3RR report (decline)

13 August 3RR report (final warned)

14 August 3RR report (page-protected)

And then there it is again "casting wild accusations" and arrent wikilawyering? If you read what I said, I've accepted the block and have not asked for anyone for a shortening of it. I've asked for the oppertunity to address this behaviour that precipitated a general edit war. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I've accepted the block and I'm not asking for anyone for a shortening of it. I'm asking for the oppertunity to address this behaviour that precipitated a general edit war. I wish to pursue the matter through the proper channels. Since blocks are preventative, no punitive, I’ve indicated my intension to address my behaviour in a constructive way, in an attempt to remove the cause of contention.

Decline reason:

"I'm not asking for anyone for a shortening of it." Then stop using the unblock template: that's for requesting that a block be lifted. You'll have plenty of chance to edit properly once the block expires. Mango juice^talk 12:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for that Mango, first one not to make "wild accusations." I'm just sorry I did not make myself clear enough for you. I have now though. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unblock|I request to be un-blocked to address the issues that precipitated a general edit war at ANI. Since the block was correct and warranted, I will not for the period of one week edit any article on wiki, confining myself to ANI and following any advice offered. In addition, I will not post to any editors talk page other than my own. Since blocks are preventative, not punitive I'm making this requesst.

I have protected your talk page for 6 days to prevent you further abusing the unblock template. You asked to be unblocked you got the answer. Persistantly making requests that essentially restate the same request is disruptive. I have e-mail enabled so if you want to let me know you will desist I'll unprotect the page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification:

You are being discussed here--Tznkai (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When will Domer be allowed to post on his own talk-page, again? GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they prefer their trials on Wiki without the victim speaking! We then get conviction by repeated assertion. But the offense seems to be "Template Abuse" (!) and ironically it was triggered by an Admin attacking Domer for "Wiki-laywering" while said Admin was.....eh.....Wiki-lawyering! (Wiki-lawyering is what the Admin Community accuse those seeking consistentcy and fairness of engaging in). fairness isn't a right on Wiki, it is a privalage. Sarah777 (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, should be allowed to post on his own talk-page. At least give'em a place, where he can let out his frustrations. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it was "only" blocked for 6 days then it should be free now - but no sign of Domer. Sarah777 (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I checked and this page is currently unprotected, so he should be okay to edit here - Alison ^❤ 17:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in a daze lately. I just noticed, the section edit symbols. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=Continued

Noted, and taken into consideration--Tznkai (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block 9/30

Template:Gblock

Unblock requests should include promises to let the sock puppet thing go, and probably promises to restrain yourself to reporting Diffs.--Tznkai (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promises to let the sock puppet thing go, and probably promises to restrain myself to reporting Diffs? I'm the only one who has used diff's? --Domer48_'fenian' 07:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. No more nonsense about the Thunderer and GD whoever, and socking. None. Zero. Zip. Nada

2. You did use diffs, but your conduct has shown you cannot use them civily. So, you would be limited to supply only a diff. One hyper link, maybe a one word comment. Thats it.

I am more concerned with #1, and probation will stand.--Tznkai (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor with a history of disruptive editing is allowed to take on a new user name and carry on in the same way as before is not right. I will not be cowed into silence by anyone when I know I’m right. Your block is puerile and beneath contempt. Now provide diff’s to back it up, or say nothing. Because you and Alison are standing over this and you know its not true. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So help me, Domer, I'll extend your block to indefinite right now so long as you intend to continue your campaign of bullying and harassment of this editor. You've been asked again and again and again to leave him alone, yet you refuse to do so. You're not privy to the facts in that case much as you protest that you do. You don't. Leave him alone already. I will not have you drive this editor from the project and frankly, don't make it a 'him-or-me' situation because if you do, you'll be found wanting in the balance. So stop the bullying already - Alison ^❤ 19:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Alison, I’m going to let it drop right now, not another word on it. All I want is, the next accusation made about me that you demand that it is supported by diff’s. If I’m uncivil to anyone, I will walk away for a month and not edit at all. I will not get into a revert war with anyone on any article. All I ask is that an admin will address the policy issues on the talk pages when a discussion has run its course. Now, dose that sound reasonable to you? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good decision Domer you are being reasonable now and you have stated that you will let it drop so let this please be the end of it. BigDunc^Talk 19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, Domer, and thanks for saying what you did here. You're a super editor - I've had tons of dealings with you in the past. You know the score. I don't want to see you blocked for any reasons, but I have to apply all things equally. If someone in the Unionist camp is pulling socking stunts (like, say, David Lauder :) ) or harassing others, you know what I'm going to do. Either way, if you get accused of stuff I want to see some evidence and, yeah, diffs would help a lot. I'll do my best to see you get treated fairly in whatever's going on. What you're saying does sound reasonable - Alison ^❤ 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probation

Due to your edit warring on numerous Ireland related articles, I have placed you on the probationary terms available to administrators under the The Troubles. This probation does not self expire, but can be lifted at administrator or community discretion, especially if the terms of probation are not violated.--Tznkai (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back this accusation with diff's? --Domer48_'fenian' 07:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is illuminating, this article shows a history of edit warring, and your tone has been generally inflammatory and, key word here, disruptive.--Tznkai (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided noting to back up your accusation of "edit warring on numerous Ireland related articles." I was blocked for 3RR on USC article for a week. Despite your allegations, I'm a good and productive editor. My grammar may be a bit of, but I abide with all our policies on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Not one Admin, has bothered their arse to enforce any of these policies. The usual cop out being it’s a content dispute or some other nonsense. You allow WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:SYN and don’t do a tap to deal with it. Now if you can’t take my honest and frank manner, that’s your problem, don't wave a stick at me. Now I’ll sit out your bad block, because I would not dignify it with an unblock request. Your a bully with a few extra buttons thats all, and I always stand up to bullies. Now have a read of this, and work on it, and you will not need this. In other words do your job. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

Domer, I feel sorry for you - this place is becoming a joke. I've never seen a more unevenhand and spurious decision in my entire life and that including anything that has ever been handed to me.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way a chara, thanks for that;)--Domer48_'fenian' 21:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent accusations?

I would like editors to address their recent accusations of me here, including supporting diff's. Unless diff's are provided it is impossible to offer a defence. I will use diff's to support my comments at all times.

"we've had many problems with him The Toubles area" Ryan Postlethwaite

What and when were these problems?

Domer however, he's passed his final warning. Ryan Postlethwaite

When and were did I get my final warning?

Ryan is human and makes mistakes like the rest of us, he accused me of being a sock and then apologised and recently here with Sarah, were they retracted their accusation.

I was page banned on the Hunger Article, mentioned by Ryan above. I ask a question in relation to that ban, and it has yet to be answered. The discussion can be found here, and the question I asked was here, and repeated here and here. The same question was raised by another editor here and was still not answered.

Would editors like to comment on this page ban and weather they considered it correct? I ask because of the comments by Ryan above, and consider under the circumstances should be addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed by the article mentors and it wasn't even me that proposed it, although I did support it. You were banned from the page because of edit warring on the article and incivility on the talk page. You can see the edit warring in these sections of the article page [1], [2], [3]. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I've asked for diff's and could you include the talk page discussions which went along with any reversions I've made. Reverting without using the talk page is considered out and out editwarring. Please give examples of incivility on the talk page? Since it takes two to edit war, please include the sanctions placed on the other editors? As article mentors please include diff's of your attempts to address the problem, something like we tried here and failed? --Domer48_'fenian' 12:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan since you did provide some diff's I'd like to say thank you, since you did raise the issue of "edit warring" could you possibly answer the question posed then which was here, thanks, supporting diff's would be helpful. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. When you were blocked for disruption on Great Famine (Ireland) it was to stop the problem in the short term. At this point, we (the mentors) discussed how we could stop the problems with the article. At that point in time, we found that you had caused a lot of trouble on the page and that overall, you were seriously hindering movement forward through edit warring and incivility. We decided that the best course of action would be to ban you from the page for a month. We based this not only on immediate problems, but a history over a number of weeks of the same disruptive behaviour. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan as I outlined above, please provide diff's? I have reviewed the diff's you did supply and none of them show edit warring. Your last post did not include any diff's at all, making it impossible to respond to I think you'll agree? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Domer, I haven't got time to rehash this once again. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan it was you who raised it at the ANI, not once but twice, and I’m asking you to support your comments with diff’s. I think that is reasonable for me to ask. Please consider the comments you have made, and respond to my reasonable requests thanks.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be posted on Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

I would like this placed on the ANI discussion which is titled “Domer.” I have provided diff’s to support my view that referenced information is being removed and that the reasons are not correct. I will provide a similar report on the subject of “Attribution” which is also subject to the same removals despite third party intervention and advice. In addition, I will compile a report on the section titled “Subversion in the UDR Report” again subject to continues removal.

I would like editors views and opinions on the insertion and removal of this information. Is the information correctly referenced, is it relevant to the subject matter, is its removal disruptive? Thanks

I started editing the article on the 8 September. I added additional referenced information here, and an additional reference here. It was then removed here, with the edit summary “Not correct at that time. A Republican POV.” It was also removed here despite the additional reference, with the edit summary “Incorrect - Republican POV.” I added it here with additional information, in addition to here with an additional reference. It was again removed here with the edit summary “Nationalist opinion is of no consequence when talking about Catholic recruits,” and here with the edit summary of “corrected POV.”

They also removed this here, though I did not add it. Some of it was restored here however it was reverted again here with the edit summary “Removing POV – again.” I removed some information and replaced the original information, now with three references here, and it was quickly removed again here with the edit summary “rem POV on B Specials.” It was re-added here and removed again here, with the edit summary “Incorrect POV has no place in this article.”

I attempted to add it again here, but it was removed again here with the edit summary “removing POV - see talk.” This is their talk page comment here, and the full discussion here.

While not accepting the referenced information that then added this here, and here. They then add this commentary here, describing it as an assertion and including more commentary here. They then add this analyses here, which I removed here, and adding this referenced information here.

I then used a completely new source here and added a Google books link to assist verifiability here, which they later removed here.

This information was then moved here and then add information here. I then added this addition here, which they then asked to be moved to another section here.

I then removed some of the commentary they added here only to have it replaced here. They then added this for some reason here. I had added this information for clarity here, but they removed it here with the edit summary “It's a separate artilce - leave it at that please. This isn't about the B Men.”

I again removed the addition of opinion into a referenced statement here with the edit summary “you have been asked by an uninvolved admin not to add your opinion” but they inserted it again here with the edit summary “It's not an opinion. I can cite that no cases were ever proven.” I again removed it here and asked “cite them then, and qualify the reference used.” It was again added back here, and they then added this here. I then added “Attribute, and remove qualifying statement from referenced source” edit here and I introduced Rocks solution here.

They then started to remove the referenced information again here with this edit summary “remove improper qualification” which I then replaced here with the edit summary “please don't remove referenced information.” They then modified the information here with the edit summary “removing incorrect assertion” and here which I changed here.

They then added their own opinion here with the edit summary “changing to reflect the fact that "reputation" wasn't in existence in 1970.” I again replaced this here with the edit summary “Please don't change sourced information, the information is supported throughout the article.”

They then started again here with the edit summary “Do not try to assert that something had a reputation before it actually had time to gain one. See Talk.” This is their talk page contribution here, the full discussion is here. I reverted again to reflect the sources here. It was again moved here, with additional information removed, which I had to replace here. This also was then removed here.This discussion should clarify some of the thinking behind its removal? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"I have provided diff’s to support my view that referenced information is being removed and that the reasons are not correct. " Being right doesn't ever excuse edit warring or incivility. Ever. Go read WP:DR--Tznkai (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to post this on Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement for me? Go read the talk page on Ulster Defence Regiment, like you said "Do not bother quoting policy to me, I know it as well as you do." --Domer48_'fenian' 17:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. But I will note on AE that you have something you wish to say here.--Tznkai (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object to another editor posting it for me?--Domer48_'fenian' 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against it, but I will not raise further issue, no.--Tznkai (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI isn't the content police and frankly you can discuss this civilly and rationally on the talk page of the article once your block expires. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion of which I'm apart, I would like my contrabution placed in the discussion. Why do I have to wait for my block to expire before it can be posted? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be posted on Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement

There were a number of issues in relation to attribution. Before I ever started attributing statements, I raised it first on the talk page here in the last paragraph, and was agreed to here, last line in the second last paragraph, "Potter. I can't see any harm in attributing statements to Potter. There may be occasions when I need to draw your attention to items if something appears glaringly obvious." In addition to this they considered that they had not used any opinions of Potter in the article here.

Again before I even began, a third opinion was sought, and Rock responded here. My view of Rocks opinion on An Phoblacht, would be the same for any " obvious partisan associations" and would include Potter?

When I attempted to start attributing statements I ran into trouble here. I was told that my attempts at attribution were well poisoning. I was informed that the A Testimony to Courage - the Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment 1969 - 1992, John Potter must be "taken as gospel."

By attributing statements I was then told I was attempting to start a Contrived Edit War, and there was no consensus to attribute Potter. I had even informed him that there would be no 3RR reports from me and this had been agreed.

Rock then gave a third party view here, and again here on attrabution. Based on Rocks input I tried to apply it here but I was expected to take Potter as fact.

I then set about attribution, based on the advice given and I commented here, but was again told Potter has to be treated as fact and needs no attribution.

I was then accused of synthesis here, Rock again stepped in to help here and again here.

I then showed some real synthesis here. They next remove attributions wholesale and comment here.

Now if editors review the Article page history they will see this all play out. I will put up the diff's if editors think it is more helpful?--Domer48_'fenian' 20:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case

See the above link. You are placed on indefinite probation. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles probation

Hello Domer48. Based on the consensus here, the probation you were placed under has been lifted, although the 1RR restriction still remains in place for all troubles related articles. Best, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Rising - reactions

Hi. Some of the stuff recently added here (in relation to a "counter balance" to the widely referenced negative reactions) is probably fine, but it does stray into "analysis" a little too much, and may be a little long. If at all possible it may be worth while summarising so that the message is: "Widely publicised accounts at the time suggested the rebellion and the rebels were ill-received amongst the general public, while other reports and more recent analysis suggest that (in working class areas in particular) the rebels were cheered and well received". And leave it at that. This newly added text pre-supposes that the reader is familiar with the subject and resources mentioned, and borders on WP:ANALYSIS. (FYI. Some of the other reasons for this apparent sway in opinion are left out: like sympathy after Connolly's execution, the fact that 3,500 people were interned though only 1,600 took part in the rising, marshal law and curfew remained long after Easter, Griffith's internment, etc). Guliolopez (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guliolopez, none of the analysis is mine, it is all cited by the authors, sorry if this is not clear from the text. I'll review it tomorrow. As to the other possible reasons such as Connolly's execution, the fact that 3,500 people were interned though only 1,600 took part in the rising, well that simply has not been included. I really think it should, though that has nothing to do with what my additions are addressing. I hope this is helpful, and clarifys the issue of WP:ANALYSIS, since I don't add my own opinions to articles. Thanks. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Guliolopez about the length, although I understand that you want to present the evidence in order to scotch the myth of the Irish peaople being totally opposed to the rising (I know it was a myth for my grandfather as he and a number of his friends joined the Volunteers in Donegal during Easter Week when he heard a rising was on the go in Dublin - they were obviously in support of it!). Have you read '1916 as history' by C. Desmond Greaves which is only a small booklet (about 40 odd pages) but packed full of information about the rising and the publics reaction - such as cheering the volunteers etc. EoinBach (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Context

Dispute

Removal of sourced and reference information.