User talk:Domer48/Archive 10

Mediation 4

You can go to this page, and talk about it. Dreamy ^§ 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to your question there. Dreamy ^§ 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Meehan

Might be best if you keep an eye on this too under the circumstances? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's on watchlist. --Domer48 15:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dreamafter/Mediation/Answer/Summaries/Final/Discussion

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Domer48 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not acceptable and will not be accepted. --Domer48 18:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance

Ignorance is the condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. In this matter you are uninformed and there was no personal attack. Aatomic1 18:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote this in the mediation section

Birmingham pub bombings is nowhere near featured article status, so the argument that the lack of a memorial to dead Brummies is somehow preventing it being a featured article is specious.Aatomic1 20:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Domer has included Marylin Nash, 22 from Pelsall and Stephen Whalley, 21 from Bloxwich as dead Brummies." Did I say this? No! --Domer48 21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish names

Domer48, don't you get it? Names are names. They are facts. They are not just words, like prose or poetry, that can be freely translated. I don't know what you know about the Irish language, but for the vast majority of Anglicised surnames, there are a number of possible Irish-language originals. The page you are using[1] is not an authoritative source for determining someone's name in Irish. Although I use my Irish surname (it's on all my official documents and has been for most of my life), I've looked up my own English-language name and the "translation" is absolute codswollop in that it completely defies the laws of Irish grammar. Other names I've checked are similarly arbitrary. I know people by the name of Jennings who under no circumstances would use "Mac Sheoinín" as they consider it offensive.

This page is clearly serves the requirements of the GAA that Irish "versions" of players' (again, from my experience, usually conjured up without any consultation with the players themselves) names be submitted to the match officials before a game, but does not satisfy the requirements of an encyclopaedia. What you provide are subjective renderings of what can only be objective facts. This GAA list provides no guarantee that the "translations" it provides are actually the used surnames of the people concerned.

This is cúpla focailism at its worst and it does nothing at all for the Irish language and less for the articles concerned. Morevoer, it's clear that the people who posted up these "names" in the first place have non-existent or at least very limited understanding of it and I suspect you're little different in that regard. Taking out your frustration at not being able to speak Irish on Wikipedia is pathetic. An bhfuil aon Gaeilge agatsa ar cor ar bith? Níl gléas bolscaireachta ach teanga beatha í!--Damac 11:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glacaim leis an bpoinnte a rinne tú cé nach naontaím leath.Taím ar bheagán gaeilge ach tá suim agam sa teanga.Teanga beo cinnte!! "Cupla Focailism at its worst" does not mean anything and is a shallow term for anybody who knows more about the irish language to use about somebody of a lesser degree of irish,cúpla focailism should be encouraged and in saying that i commend domer48 for his limited but cúpla focail none the less,would it not be better damac for somebody like you to encourage the use of our native language,assuming domer48 is a full blooded irish person,well then he has every right to cúpla focail and aspire to inhance his knowledge of the "living language" as you put it,not for propaganda use as you state but for practical conversation or would that burst your "living language bubble". Damac try not discourage with words like pathetic,this living language belongs to us all,whatever your level,seems like your caught up on the laws of irish grammer instead of practical promotion of the language,something that would credit your POV with class instead of bitterness..Breen32 (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Breen32 (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you forgotten the IMOS that you so willingly quoted during the week.[2] Where is the evidence in your recent spate of edits that these names were used by the subjects of the articles?--Damac 12:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said the names were not sourced. I have provided a source. You are saying the source is not relilable, provide a reference for this, otherwise it's just comment and opinion. I'm willing to be helpful, read my contrabutions on the discussion page and your talk page, please assume good faith. --Domer48 12:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Breen32 (talk) how's the form. Don't worry about those comments. You only have to read their attempt to realise what your dealing with. Your use of native Irish is much more appealing and much nicer on the ear. Take care. --Domer48 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why

do you think so? - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Domer48 (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry

You seem to be confusing removing POV with adding a different POV. Please point to one POV statement I have inserted into the article. I have pointed to several of yours. -R. fiend (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, name one piece of POV, OR, or personal opinion I have inserted into the article. -R. fiend (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed information which was clearly in quotation marks. You have no idea of the author you dismissed, and you are edit waring to make a point. --Domer48 (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is removing biased information adding POV? And I am familiar with Golway, I've even read one of his books. That's irrelevant. And I'm not edit warring to make a point, I'm trying to write a neutral article. Since you can't point to one POV statement I've inserted into the article, despite several requests, I think we can dismiss your accusations outright. -R. fiend (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is done, I will report your conduct on the admin's notice board. Which includes edit warring and blocking an article to make a point. --Domer48 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Kevin Barry.

Please note that edit warring is disruptive and can lead to preventative blocks. Regards, Mercury 19:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham pub bombings

Domer, I note that you have begun edit-warring on the above article. May I point you to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles and indicate that you may be placed on probation under the provisions of said ArbCom ruling? Thanks - Alison ^❤ 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Alison, will take your advice. The article is currently the subject of Mediation, as this editor is aware. The mediator has themselves had to revert this list twice, pointing out that it is the subject of mediation. If it is the case that only the mediator is to revert, I will leave it to them. Thanks again, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Society of the United Irishmen

Cheers mate, I've fixed the image. All the best! Martin (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem. --Domer48 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits ip 81.86.253.176

Hello Domer48, thank you for suggesting I contact you. I wish to bring up two matters - firstly, the edits on the troubles. As I stated before, all other things being equal, it should be reported as an accidental killing, rather than (as the language would suggest) premeditated. Especially given the details of the killing - a high calibre machine gun round that travelled through a wall. Quite clearly accidental. Once I get round to registering I will cite a reference for this. At the very least I would suggest a rewording that seems more objective.

Secondly, the edit on the largest sizes of empires. You seem to have sent me a message which would indicate I have added material without citing sources.... My edit removed a conclusion that was not borne out by the data cited in the article, I haven't added anything at all. The statement I edited out could not be verified, so I removed it. I don't see the issue here, but if there is one please get back to me.

Thanks!

the issue of the use of the word Holocaust

Below is a summary on the issue of the use of the word Holocaust, and the political nature surrounding it, and the instigation of the controversy.

1995, James Mullin (a former librarian) and Jack Worrall (Chairman of the Rutgers University Economics Department) proposed that a study unit on the Irish Famine should be included in Holocaust Education Commission. The initiative had the support of the Holocaust Education Commission, which was largely composed of Jewish educators, including some of the death camp survivors. Despite this the Sunday Telegraph accused it of being the work of “hard line Irish American nationalists,” who were denigrating the memory of Holocaust survivors. The Sunday Telegraph omitted to mention that the Holocaust Education Commission endorsed its inclusion. New York State decided to introduce a Famine curriculum support for it cut across party and ethnic divisions, with American-Cuban Congressman Bob Mendenez, sponsored it, claiming that, ‘The Irish Famine teaches an important lesson about intolerance and inhumanity and the indifference of the British government to the potato blight that led to the mass starvation of one million people.’ The conservative press in both Britain and the United States disliked the anti- British sentiments expressed. The common tactic was to suggest that supporters of the Famine curriculum were drawing unsustainable comparisons with the Holocaust, despite this not being the case. The British government under John Major, regarded the teaching of Famine history with such seriousness was evident from the fact that the British Ambassador was recalled to New York so that he could make a formal protest to Governor Pataki. This intervention by the British Ambassador led the New York Daily News, which itself opposed the introduction of the curriculum, suggesting that, “Even after 150 years, the British still obviously fear the facts.” The London Times accusing Governor Pataki of pandering to Irish-American voters, while promoting a version of Irish history that was rooted in “the Fenian propaganda version which ambitious American politicians tend to prefer.” John Major chose not to support the Famine commemorations in Britain in 1995, describing them as being of concern only to Ireland. Tony Blair who succeeded Major, did not directly offer an apology for the actions of the British government 150 years earlier, Blair acknowledged that, “Those who governed in London at the time failed their people through standing by while a crop failure turned into a massive human tragedy.” The Daily Telegraph even before the official release of the speech, accused Blair of giving succour to “the self-pitying nature of Irish nationalism [and] the grievance culture which allows nationalist Ireland to place the blame for all the country’s ills at the door of the Brits, ultimately justifying terrorism.”

Christine Kinealy, "This Great Calamity." British sentiments expressed about the famine are only excuses for the failure ot that nation in helping a much smaller and very desperate neighbour,the famine is what it is and always will be,"A great inhumanity done to the Irish people be the British" the inhamanity was not helping and not responding to the crys for help..And 150 years later not having the guts to admit this inhumanity as did mr Blair.No politics,just pure inhumanity,in some ways a lot like the Holocaust..Breen32 (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC) It is my opinion the this summary highlights two things, the first being that the famine is still a deeply political issue, and secondly, the controversial nature of it is directed through the press. What I mean is, that the press creates the controversy. --Domer48 20:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on this please? Either here, there, or my talk page will be fine. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad revert

This was a bad idea. Reverting should, per Help:reverting, only be used against vandalistic edits. Bastun's edits improved the article; by reverting his good edits you make the article worse and raise the tension all round. Please, think again about this edit. Thanks, --John (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read over it again, as you suggest. The referenced information was removed, and I did suggest the use of the talk page. Thanks for the advice. --Domer48 (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, thanks for listening and for modifying your edit. I have since modified it further and contributed to the talk page again. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People by Religion Categories

Would not it be appropriate to also remove Irish Anglicans, Methodists, atheists etc. from categories where their faith does not apply to their notability? -RiverHockey (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much be in favour of that proposal RiverHockey (talk) religous cats do not belong in my opinion in an article were it plays no part in notability. BigDunc (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, very good proposel, and would support there removal %100. Fair play. --Domer48 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Barry

Can you explain your infobox change on the Tom Barry article please. I'm afraid i've not time to read his autobiography?! I also suggest you add this info into the actual article if it is relevant to his British Army serviceKernel Saunters (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove block

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 have just been blocked by an editor I'm in conflict with on an article, Please remove the block and report the editor for this abuse. This is the second time this editor has abused their admin tool with me. --Domer48 (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Agreed, the sysop who blocked you was in conflict with you, and no, a 3RR report does not have to be filed for someone to be blocked for edit warring. Request for unblocking has been declined. — nat.utoronto 11:59, 18 December 2007 (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.

I have just been blocked by an editor I'm in conflict with, Please remove the block and report the editor. --Domer48 (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better if an admin clearly unvinvolved were to apply the block, but you were clearly edit warring, judging from [3] [4] [5]. Is there some reason you're reverting so persistently, instead of moving forward to emphasize dicussion of your desired revisions? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussion page, it was being moved on. This editor has done this in the past. Do not attempt to justify this, the block should be removed. --Domer48 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the blocking admin to comment on their conflict of interest. But, your reply doesn't answer the question: why were you edit warring, in the first place? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, that is something that can be raised later. This block was unjustified. I was not edit warring! Referenced information was being altered and removed. Again look at my constructive comments on the discussion page. In addition, were is the 3rr report? --Domer48 (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone reading this will know it is a BS call. Why not just trow out the policies to placate a POV bandit. A clear COI, and it is justified. That this is the second time this editor has done this is there for all to see. That they stalk my edits, place comment and opinion into articles, and can block an editor who references everything they add speaks volumes. I'm not accepting this discission and wish to take it up a level. --Domer48 (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2007 (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:

Because the blocking admin has a conflict of interest, has done this before on the Kevin Barry Article and is creating problems on the Easter Rising article. In addition, I have not broken the 3rr rule, I replaced referenced information. In addition, I have used the talk page on the article and offered constructive comments, the blocking admin has not used the discussion page at all. Therefore, the block is not justified. No report was issued on the 3rr page, and did not allow for discussion, and I CAN NOT SEE THE POLICY which states a block can be issued without this report.

Decline reason:

I'm confused by your confusion. You violated the 3RR rule because you reverted the same information more than three times; that you believe that it belongs there is irrelevent. 3RR applies to everyone, because it's against the rules and also rather pointless to edit-war. That rule clearly says that people can be blocked for violating it; the purpose of the reporting page is to draw an admin's attention to a violation, but there's no point in reporting it if an admin has already noticed the violation. In the future, try the solutions at dispute resolution instead of edit-warring. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:13, 18 December 2007 (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.

This block should be lifted the blocking admin is clearly abusing his admin privilages to push his POV on this and a number of other articles.--Padraig (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone show me the 3 reverts? Because I can not see them. --Domer48 (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R.Fiend blocks me because they wanted to remove referenced text, and now they are on the Easter Rising article adding WP:OR, them are their new side kick. This block was bang out of order, just to placate this POV pushing. --Domer48 (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin involved in a content dispute by inserting unreferenced and original reasearch should not be allowed to use his blocking powers on another editor. BigDunc (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the block, though R fiend should have let another admin place the block. Edit-warring is a seriously bad idea and WP:3RR is one of the very few hard rules we have here. Don't do it. --John (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you endorse the block - that is not a shock at all, you have shown your support for blocks and bans on countless Irish editors. Which one is it - edit warring or 3RR, the goal posts keep moving to ensure Domer48 is blocked - why where all editors that agreed with R. friend ignored. Also if you say that R friend shouldnt have blocked him then you disagree with the block. Unblock Domer - and THEN if warranted put the issue on report.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, avoid bringing your silly prejudice to the discussion, focus on policy. 3RR is a subset of edit warring, and Domer48 has therefore breached both. Don't do it, and avoid disruption and the block that inevitably follows. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. --John (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John we have had our differences and have since got over them. I was not edit warring. I used the talk page. I replaced referenced information. You are right though, R. Fiend should not have blocked me. So if you endorse the block, do up a 3rr report, allow me the oppertunity to defend my edits, and if I am in the wrong I will accept the block. As things stand, you would not accept this block if you were in my position. This is not the first time either that they have done this, it was the same on the Kevin Barry article also, and an admin stepped in, and had a word with them. I also have had the same hassel on the Easter Rising with this editor adding WP:OR. Best example, check out this edit] and see if you can see one reference to the information they added. The answer is none. --Domer48 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your considered response. While I am inclined to agree with you on the content issue, and I certainly understand your frustration, you have to accept that you were edit-warring and that you broke 3RR. I would certainly not have blocked an editor I was in a content dispute with, but this is a technical issue and does not detract from the fact that the block was justified. If you are looking for a suggestion, I suggest that you speak nicely to the blocking admin about the possibility of shortening the block, and that you refrain from edit-warring in the future. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am cool as can by my friend, it is just becoming evident to me how you operate when an editor is block - it hasnt gone unoticed! If you want evidence of this then I suggest we take to either of our talk pages.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. friend never produced evidence of a breach of 3RR, R. friend never gave a warning about the impending 3RR, R. friend never gave notice of the block, R. friend never gave him a chance to defend the edits or stop reverting, R. friend never said a word to the others editing that page, R. friend never should have blocked him - full stop.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like bringing your silly prejudice are not helpful John (talk) and im sure you dont need to be reminded of WP:NPA-- BigDunc (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't. I stand by what I said; such prejudice holds us back from creating a word-class encyclopedia and is therefore deeply, deeply silly and unhelpful. Saying so does not even come close to breaching policy. --John (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but you have to have a thick skin when dealing with that editor.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect John, I was hoping you could try do up a 3 rr because I did not break it. Go through the edit history, check the talk page. I did not break it. Show me that I did. Show me that I did not use the talk page. Show me that I did not reference everything I added. Agree with me that the references were altered. Agree with me that some of the references had nothing to do with what was added to the page. Just prove that I breached 3rr? --Domer48 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying you did not break 3RR I will have a look. It will take a few minutes. --John (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, at least that is something. More than R.Fiend could manage, I wonder if the block has anything to do with the warnings I placed on their page, even though they removed them, they are still in the page history. --Domer48 (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per WP:DTR this was not a good idea. We live and learn. --John (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 3RR to me

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

Now, as I was saying, you need to either speak nicely to the blocking admin, or post this at the admin's noticeboard. I would suggest the former. Let me know if I can be any more help to you. --John (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt lower myself Domer48 - but thats just me. Everyone can see you have been wronged here although "fellow admins" rarely want to admit it.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats sound John thanks for that, now how can I make a post if I'm Blocked? Because look at the reverts I made, they were for totally different things. Not only that, at all times I used the talk page. Myself and Escorial82 were starting to work things out in a reasonable manner, until bill and ben showed up. Now I did not break the 3 rr, look at the edits and I'm sure you will agree. --Domer48 (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask the blocking admin for an unblock on your behalf, on condition you guarantee not to edit war in future, regardless of how right you think you are. Deal? --John (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John you have done more than enough already. However, I can not agree with being accused of edit warring. If the block is removed, it will be because it was unjustified. Since the ArbCom's I have been on my best. I did not break the 3rr. I will open a request for comment, or at the very least ask that R. Fiend be added to the list on the ArbCom, because the Kevin Barry and Easter Rising Articles would come under the heading of "The Troubles." Once again, thanks for all your help, but I can only accept the block being lifted unconditionally, otherwise I'm admitting to something I did not do. --Domer48 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to you. I'm disappointed that you do not see why this sort of edit-warring is unhelpful to our progress in creating a world-class encyclopedia. If you change your mind let me know and I can help you to bring this forwards. If you would prefer to sit out your block then that is your choice. --John (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you Domer! The block should be undone - and then the potential 3RR reported in the correct manner - if then there is a case to answer then a block could be on the cards. Also strip R. friend of his admin powers as he is unfit to hold them.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits which John was good enough to provide show that I did not edit war, and John did more than any of the admins who endorsed it. That they did not even trouble themselves to check the page history is a disgrace. That they then defended the indefencable says more about them than I need too. I will follow up on what Vin says is now obvious. This type of abuse of admin tools should not be accepted by us mear editors. That I followed the rules and got the bad end of the stick is just power for the course. They may be some who get their jollies of on my being blocked, but they are more to be pitied for there sad little pleasures. At the very least John was willing to put their head above the parapet, says more about the rest. --Domer48 (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you're referring to clearly show you reverting four times within a 24 hour period of time, which is precisely what WP:3RR is against. I am confused as to why you think that they show you did not edit war. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look you had your chance to check this out and you did'ent. They are seperate issues, are you now suggesting that if you revert 4 times no matter what it is you break the 3rr. Cop on to yourself. The block was unjustified, the editor who blocked me, even if they were justified should not have done it. The editor who blocked me did not use the talk page at all. And now the two of them are onto the Easter Rising article, which I happen to edit, and adding all the WP:OR they can while I'm blocked. The blocking editor removes the warrnings I placed on their page. That the blocking editor pulled a similer stunt on the Kevin Barry article, and had to be pulled by another admin says a lot. No report was placed on the 3rr page. So your saying your confused, try not bending the rules after the fact then. Now since you have already shown yourself to be less than helpful, why don't we leave it at that then. --Domer48 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, you seem confused. You broke the rules (there are certain exceptions to 3RR such as reverting unambiguous vandalism and WP:BLP violations, but this was not one of them) and you were justly blocked for doing so. Wikilawyering about the 3rr noticeboard is neither here nor there as there is no requirement that a report be made at the noticeboard. You do have a point that R. fiend should not have blocked someone he was in conflict with and I am happy to endorse that that was an error on his part, but that does not excuse your breach of the rules. Admins are human too you know and do make mistakes. If you are able to learn from this, you can actually improve as an editor. If you repeat this behaviour your next block will likely be much longer. The choice is yours; choose well. Remember I offered to help you; that offer still stands. We all make mistakes and admitting your mistake will not diminish you in anybody's eyes, quite the contrary. Think about it, please. --John (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, I'm not going to pussy foot around here, I added referenced information, the references were altered and information added. I went to the talk page, and raised it there. Now there were then additional changes, I addressed it on the talk page and changed it. Seperate issues. Myself and an other editor while in a dispute, started a reasonable discussion, and I offered constructive suggestions. Then those two POV merchants show up. Now two seperate issues, always using the talk page, offering suggestions to resolve the issue. Then an admin with a history of abusing their admin tools, gets involved, (note, this is not the first time I have had to deal with this editor) slaps in a block. Now while this discussion has been taking place, rather than defend their actions, they are of causing trouble on another article. This is pure BS. This stinks to high heaven, and that is a fact. --Domer48 (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Front Page Irish War News.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Front Page Irish War News.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. friend

Domer, what do you want to do about this block? If you want to raise it at ANI please let me know as I would like to have my say about it.

I for one think you should!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vin sorry for not getting back to you srtight away to thank you for your support. I have asked John what is the best way to deal wiht this editor. They will probably offer the same advice as you, and I will more than likley take that routh. I have just asked Alison what is the story of having them added to the Troubles ArbCom, as the articles I'm being stalked on would come under that heading. Anywho, thanks again, Regards --Domer48 (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your edit here; remember that civil dialogue about the best way to proceed is far more likely to lead to a result than issuing another templated warning, which, as I already pointed out, is contrary to WP:DTR. Often, just walking away can be the most effective way of dealing with someone you find problematic. However, if you continue to have problems with R. fiend, it may be that a report at WP:AN/I will be necessary. I hope it doesn't come to that as AN/I is often just a drama fest without any real resolution possible. If you can swallow your pride and annoyance (difficult I know) and focus on the compromises both of you will need to make to improve the article, you will keep the moral high ground, which is the greatest victory possible here, I believe. Let me know, please, if you require any additional help. --John (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, they are branching out onto other articles, and it is just to provoke, but it will not bother me. I'm getting the diff's together for a report, because they are just taking you and Fozz for a ride. I managed to get an article started today regardless of this carry on. Now it is obvious I'm having problems with this editor, and that even though it's obvious to everyone, I have to do the spade work on this, and will. It will just take a day or two. --Domer48 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the article. At the end of the day that is what we are here for. --John (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Hello, Domer48. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. The exact section is here SirFozzie (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Easter Rising

Domer, can you check Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for details about using talk pages, and remember what I said about the moral high ground. --John (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John, this editor is walking all over our policies. Now am I right or wrong, did they introduce POV into an edit they should not have made in the first place. To leave it out of that discussion covers up our objections. --Domer48 (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have faith in the community to sort it out. It is often (though not always) quite good at doing this. You urgently need to cool down and have a cup of tea or similar. At the moment you are in danger of being seen as part of the problem and not part of the solution, as they say. Let others look at it, as they no doubt are doing. Take care, --John (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok John, I'll take my tank of the lawn, thanks. --Domer48 (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you. I need to go out and do some real world things for the next couple of hours myself. I confidently expect not to see you blocked again when I return. Please do your best not to let me down. It's amazing what stepping out for even a few hours can do to defuse these things. Best, --John (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring Admins

Domer; you mentioned in the recent Admin Power Abuse case on "Massacres" that you had been subject a block (?) by an Admin who was edit-warring (I think). This appears to be rather common (or is becoming so). Can you provide with me with the diffs? -;) - Sarah777 (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring

Since the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts per day, and since you clearly participated in an edit war with Traditional unionist, and since you only recently were blocked for a similar offense, I've blocked you for 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2007 (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:

With all dur respect, first, I have not participated in an edit war with Traditional unionist. I used the talk page. I also used edit summaries. The block you mention is disputed, and SirFozzie opened an AN/I report. The editor who blocked me was involved in a content dispute with me. They have a track record of such things. Did I breach the 3rr? I did not, and had no intension to either.--Domer48 (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As has been explained to you above, WP:3RR is not an entitlement, but an electric fence leading to an automatic block. You have, nevertheless, been edit warring. Given your previous block and numerous warnings, this block is even rather lenient. — Coren ^(talk) 00:11, 30 December 2007 (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.

.

IMPORTANT AND URGENT - Domer, could you tell me where you committed the deed that got you blocked? (Earlier I asked you for the name of an Admin and you didn't tell me; who was it?) Regards -- Sarah777 (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Londonderry, North Yorkshire, you would only have to read my talk page to know that block they refere to was disputed. All they done was read the block log and said here is a likely lad. Block. --Domer48 (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But I put a question on User talk:Heimstern and it seems he blocked "Trad Unionist" as well. (Sarah777 (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

They said I was edit warring, which I was not, and had not intension to either. But that they said "since you only recently were blocked for a similar offense," that really pissed me off. Just look at my page, and then there is the AN/I, that has not gone away. --Domer48 (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Domer - the North Yorkshire one looks like 3 reverts each to me - what am I missing? You gotta be careful here - we're in a minefield and I got blown up once! (Sarah777 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Check the 3rr report, there is no way, I was going to get into it on that article. All the blocking admin has to do is check those articles, and talk to me about edit warring. Sorry Sarah, User:R. fiend is the tool abusing admin, still tyring it on with me on the Easter Rising article. Was at it on the Segi article, Kevin Barry, Patrick Pearse and the Irish Volunteers. --Domer48 (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, how many 2rr warnings do you see getting reported? "since you only recently were blocked for a similar offense," that is bad form. --Domer48 (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the 2rr; but I thought you were saying Yorkshire isn't 3rr? --Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, looks like you are right, you need more than 3 for 3RR. I've asked Alison to look into it. -- Sarah777 (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sarah, I would like to know why I have been blocked? The blocking admin has said that “the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts per day”, that’s fine. So I would like to know what is the difference with these then, this report and and this report. Now I dispute that I was edit warring. In light of this report by Fozz, I have a serious problem with this block. Is it the case that we have a two sets of policies? The recent block that is mentioned by the blocking admin is for these edits, 20:30, 17 December 2007, 23:38, 17 December 2007, 08:50, 18 December 2007, 09:25, 18 December 2007. Now no report was filed, I was just blocked by an admin involved in a discussion. Fozz was the only one who would agreed that the Diff's did show they were for [different things]. Now, admins are quick to block, and slow when you put in an unblock request. I’d like the block lifted, and my concerns addressed, not much to ask.

Purely for information purposes, I am not endorsing or reversing the block, but I believe these are the edits that caused the problem.[6][7] [8]AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To followup with Sarah here, I'm okay with this block given your "opponent", User:Traditional unionist, has picked up an identical block on the same article. When I look, I see an edit-war over a rather trivial matter (as these things always are). Furthermore, from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. "Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive ". Both of you were being "clearly disruptive" and both of you have a history of it. From what I can see here, the admin blocked you both to prevent ongoing disruption. All said, I'm not going to formally review your block and will let another admin give their opinion instead - Alison ^❤ 22:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alison for that, and you have hit the nail on the head, a rather trivial matter. That they had been going at it, and had it explained to them, I thought they were just being disruptive. After my second edit, I went to the talk page. Because I said this ****** is serious about this. There is now way I was going to get into an edit war with them over this. Now I will pull you up on the “Both of you were being "clearly disruptive" and both of you have a history of it.” That I get into difficulties I can attest, but I do not set out to disruptive, never have and never will. The articles I edit have a history. Now is there any admin want to address the questions I have asked. Alison, that dose not include you, I would not wish it on ye. LOL --Domer48 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer's unblock request - surprise rejection

See Domer? More Admin logic! "Given your previous block" (eh, the one everyone, including Admins agrees was illegitimate and Admin abuse), your block was, believe it or not, "lenient". Message Domer? Yep. Admins may make abusive blocks but it stains your record, not theirs! This would be funny it it weren't so pathetic! (Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

So, what is 3RR?

Found this on the List of massacres talkpage:

"This is how I read the "four reverts":

   * R.fiend sets page to his preferred version. Edit, not revert.

   * Returns page to his preferred version. Strike one.

   * Returns page to his preferred version, again. Strike two.

   * Returns page to his preferred version, again, again. Strike three. You're still in.

Regards to both of you. AnnH (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)"

So, if she is right, Domer is maybe TWO edits short of 3RR. Surely we need a solid rule? We have had way too many cases of edit-warring Admins and Admins abusing their power to leave such discretion in the "warring" call. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think Alison has explained it pretty clearly above. The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day AliveFreeHappy (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. There is much anger about poor Admins across Wiki and way too many cases of Admin abuse of power to allow such discretion. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not seeing any "admin abuse of power" here given 1) the rules, 2) 3RR is not an entitlement, as I pointed out, and 3) a report was placed at AN3 and an uninvolved admin acted upon it. Where's the abuse here? - Alison ^❤ 22:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General point; Admins frequently abuse power; I've had personal experience. Thus, the discretion around 3RR should be removed - most especially the discretion to short-circuit it. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well, no. Some admins abuse power, some admins frequently abuse power, even. If you don't like the discretion around 3RR, the best thing to do is go to the talk page or to ANI and discuss the matter and have policy changed. It's currently set the way it is to prevent gaming the system, where editors are ostensibly edit-warring (as here) and where editors do the three-reverts-per-day thing for months on end. Calling "admin abuse" at the drop of a hat, as you have been doing of late, only cheapens the whole idea and eventually, people stop listening to you - Alison ^❤ 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf is a bad analogy. Folk may well stop listening - but every time I cried there was a wolf there. :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, here was my contribution to the AN/I Fozz set up.

My dealings with this editor have been very unpleasant. On the Kevin Barry article they abuse their admin tools , and then had to be warned about it. They follow me to the Segi and start there, adding thing to referenced text. They then go and block me]. Admin John was decent enough to provide the diff's. While other editors noted the COI, which is an abuse of admin tools, Fozz was the only one who would agreed that the Diff's did show they were for [different things]. I did not even get put on a 3rr report. I reported them for a 3 rr same situation, and they walk away from it. Now it has got to the stage were Fozz gave them a strong Fozz warning, which they ignore, and tell John to to leave it in. Regardless of all this they still can not be civil. It was as a result of being here that I learn that they have a history of this. Another Admin had to step in on Patrick Pearse. They Block on another editor, and thought light of it. And have been pulled judging from a page littered with civility. Now they have followed me to more articles Irish Volunteers http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Se%C3%A1n_Heuston&curid=572202&diff=179243131&oldid=179232200 Sean Huston]. Having filed another 3 rr I notice they still have not been blocked for edit warring. And still the abuse gose on. To top it all of they abuse their admin tool now to edit an article which is protected with no agreement reached, and dispite being warned not to. It over to you now to sort this out, because what can I do. --Domer48 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, that was over a week ago and we've all been over it already. I'm not seeing the relevance of it here now and agreed with you at the time that R. Fiend was an involved admin. Heimstern, on the other hand, is not. Big difference - Alison ^❤ 22:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heimstern, perhaps without knowing the background, factored R Fiends totally illegitimate block into his decision. He used it as justification. That is a mistake. OK? Admins very often make mistakes and very seldom admit to them. IMHO. And in my experience. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Bad news Domer old pal - far from relieving from a dodgy block Alison has threatened to put me on probation! It's in times of crises you know you will have the courage to stand for what's right I guess. -- Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...except you're not right. None of you are right. Domer, Sarah. QUIT IT with the edit warring. If you have problems, the solution is not to go reverting willy-nilly. Now cut it out. SirFozzie (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edit-warred; never did more than two reverts. And I'm not a quitter. OK? -- Sarah777 (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I have not "threatened to put [you] on probation". Far from it. I've suggested that your behaviour will land you with being put on probation, as indeed it will. This is a totally separate issue to the Domer thing here. I'll stand for what I believe to be right, just as anyone else, and you know it. I've stood up to you and for you on enough occasions that you should know that by now - Alison ^❤ 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK Ali; this isn't really personal as I hope you realise. But 3RR is a mess as currently administered - right across Wiki. It is an invitation to abuse power; or indulge bias. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That's a patently unfair claim, a simple analysis of this situation shows two editors violating the spirit of the WP:3RR rule, as evidenced by their WikiLawyering. Both received the same block. It looks correct and fair. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was not. Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I’m being treated to the spirit and letter of the law, how nice. How many 3 Revert reports are there on the report page with just 3 reverts? Selective use of policies, plain and simple. Fair enough, I now know I’m up against a stacked deck. No point me filing 3rr or making reports to AN/I, it’s a closed shop. That’s fine, but what I will not take is the pontificating. I’ll continue to edit, put up with the POV merchants, and watch how the policies are twisted and bent to suit the needs of the moment. But no more lectures on my talk page, or lessons in hypocrisy, had about enough of that thanks. Sarah, thanks for the support, and if you ever need some give us a shot. --Domer48 (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not supporting (just) you Domer; I'm supporting all the victims (which have included myself) of the ridiculous discretion given to admins whose neutrality and/or reasoning ability is non existent (excluding all the Admins involved here, of course). We have a situation now, even with a set of top-drawer Admins involved where you are blocked for not breaching 3RR while TU remains unpunished for breaching an absolute ruling by Arbcom! Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, TU was blocked as well as you, and TU is not breaching any ruling of the troubles arbcom, No editor was placed on probation or 1RR by the arbcom, there was a ruling that in future any editor on the list of those involved in the arbcom or any other editor that takes part in edit wars on troubles related articles Could be placed on probation and 1RR by the admins. To date the only editor to have been placed on this probation was Aatomic1, and that was after numerous warnings from the admins.--Padraig (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padraig; I wasn't blocked (yet) - that was Domer. (TU was involved in twi simultaneous edit wars apparently). He most certainly did breach his Arbcom probation conditions. Clearly, without doubt; on "The Troubles" he is allowed one edit per week (like yourself btw); he made two reverts of my edit in a few minutes. Just like Domer's (alleged) 3RR, that's a slam dunk. Mandatory block. I sure didn't make the rules; but I want the discretionary ones abolished and the mandatory ones enforced with the same rigid consistency that's applied to myself and Domer. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sarah I REPEAT NOBODY IS ON PROBATION FROM THE ARBCOM, go read the ruling. As for your reverting the Ireland article, didn't realise you where so petty because I didn't support you earlier when you where clearly in the wrong.--Padraig (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(a) I was not clearly in the wrong - you accused me of edit-warring; I was no more warring than you were on the Ireland article (except I made rather fewer edits before you made the accusations).

(b) This isn't the first time you've done this; stop using me to get brownie points with Unionist editors.

(c)I don't reckon that responding robustly to statement that could get me blocked is "petty".

Sarah777 (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, please listen to what Padraig is saying here. Nobody's currently on probation here. Nobody. The 1RR rule does not apply to anyone right now. Step back and read it through - Alison ^❤ 02:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Arbcom ruling

Participant probation

1) The named participants in this matter: David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Major Bonkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log); Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log); Conypiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Traditional unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), W. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to set of articles considered in this matter, including articles which relate to the Ulster banner and baronets.

Terms of probation

2) Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert.

   Support:

      1. Fred Bauder 22:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
      2. Although the terminology is messy here; "probation" has meant something quite different in other cases. Kirill 03:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
      3. We need to make a better list of users on probation, but yes I support this type of probation. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
      4. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
      5. (Moved to be an Enforcement) Though unused right now. James F. (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
      6. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
      7. Charles Matthews 09:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you failed to read the thing clearly, the list in 1) and the sought probation failed to be passed. In the second 2) that only applies to those that would be placed on probation in future, but the arbcom give everyone a clean slate at its ending, and only ruled on future cases of edit warring on troubles articles.--Padraig (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you think Domer should be unblocked? If so, why have you made no plea on his behalf? You seem very concerned that TU (who was simultaneously warring on two different articles with both myself and Domer) be not blocked than you are with the injustice of Domers block or the possibility of getting me blocked. No? Sarah777 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah I haven't even had a chance to look yet at what Domer was blocked for, so until then I can't comment, but as Domer is not protesting about the block much I would guess that he did overstep the mark, maybe not intentionly, but until I check I can't comment and if I think he was blocked wrongly I will voice my objection to it.--Padraig (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer is not protesting about the block much !!! For f.. sake! What can he do?? Have you read what he said? He feels he was stitched up! And does calling on Bastun to help your edit-warring not breach all sorts of rules? (Of course I'm not saying you are not 100% right in your edit there, but warring is warring, isn't it?) Anyway, as Domer is blocked while we edir maybe you'd take a look - it won't take long? Alison has no sympathy, btw. (Sarah777 (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have plenty of sympathy for Domer, Sarah, but I'm not about to unblock him. Nor am I unblocking TU - Alison ^❤ 02:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article at issue, both of them made 3RR, and were blocked so there is not much that can be done on that. As for the dispute I have to say both of them are right in their own way, I started a discussion on the talk page and suggested a compromise wording that takes into account both views, hopefully both sides will find it acceptable.--Padraig (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]