Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:12, 22 January 2008

Today is 28 December 2024

Archives

Archive 1 - 19 February 2007 to 28 February 2007 Archive 2 - 28 February 2007 to 28 March 2007 Archive 3 - 01 April 2007 to 30 April 2007 Archive 4 - 01 May 2007 to 31 May 2007 Archive 5 - 01 June 2007 to 30 June 2007 Archive 6 - 01 July 2007 to 31 July 2007 Archive 7 - 01 August 2007 to 31 August 2007 Archive 8 - 01 September 2007 to 30 September 2007 Archive 9 - 01 October 2007 to October 2007 Archive 10 - 01 November 2007 to December 2007 Archive 11

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

Re:The spirit of 3rr

Yes, I'd say that's fairly well against the spirit of 3RR, and is definitely edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --Domer48 (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Segi

I would like to address the Segi block here, so as not to deflect from the real purpose of the RfC. Admin, John provided the diff’s that they considered made up the breach of the three reverts. They are as follows:

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

As can be seen, the first one is unrelated to the others. Now, as can be seen from the page history, R. fiend et el, had no history or knowledge of this article until I began editing it. They had started edit warring on the Kevin Barry article, which I had just completely referenced, and followed me then to Segi. Now if the above diff’s are seen with this background, they do take on a different aspect. I did use the talk page at all times, and the edit summaries were very clear. It can be argued that I did not breach the 3rr rule, but broke the spirit of it. But if we are all honest about it, that was not the reason for the block. I was given no warning, no report was made, and blocked by an Admin who had a COI, and refused to comment on his actions.

Now I did place two reports for 3 rr against R.fiend, and the results were not particularly satisfying when you bear in mind the above experience, here and here.

I my self was then blocked for breaching the spirit of the 3 rr here. You can possibly imagine how I felt when I read “Since the three-revert rule is not an entitlement to three reverts” and “since you only recently were blocked for a similar offence.” based on my above experiance. The block on Segi in my opinion was wrong, and it did contribute to the subsequent block. --Domer48 (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I contacted the admin who blocked me on the second one here, and asked them to review the conduct of R.fiend for the 30 Dec. There reply is just above the Segi section, needless to say I did not file a report. I made another report on the Admin's page, but decided to leave it at that. --Domer48 (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Roger Casement

Thanks. I should have done that, but got distracted. I am sick of all this untoward speculation about a dead man's sexuality. Truly, are we to believe that a Unionist politician from the north is a reliable source on the personal life of a dead Irish rebel? What a load of bollocks! Thanks for your note. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Incourage them towards the talk page, and don't allow their reverting to reflect bad on yourself. --Domer48 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

famine/hunger page

Hi. I just edited over your revert on the famine/hunger page. I think my edit addresses the concerns expressed by the previous edit without taking a position either way. have a look. Hughsheehy (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine. --Domer48 (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Note regarding User:R. fiend's RFC

Please note, I have acted on the consensus I have seen on the main RfC page, and opened a Request for Arbitration. You may add (brief, 500 words or less) statements Here. Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Peadar Clancy Article

Good article Domer I see you have been stalked on it already one of your admirers is on it with tags after 4 mins that must be a record what exactly needs to be cleaned up? BigDunc (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dunc. My first real attempth at an Article, so I suppose it's a start. I'm not even going to bother with them, decided not to argue about it. From now on, I'll just ignore the row risers, and carry on editing. The system may not be perfect, and may be slow, but I do think it works. They will be copped sooner or later, I'm just happy with the attempth. --Domer48 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Who will be "copped" sooner or later? On the one hand you claim you've issued a frank and sincere apology for your behaviour on Misplaced Pages, and on the other you continue to label editors as "row risers".

BigDunc, as you admitted to me yourself, you don't like nor understand grammar. I think you should, therefore, refrain from dismissing the attempts of those who do by referring to them as "stalkers".--Damac (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for a rash flippant statement Damac (talk), and I didn't say that I don't understand grammer just that I hate it and often got it wrong BigDunc (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:1916-1921 club 030.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1916-1921 club 030.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorted. --Domer48 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend/Workshop.

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

User_talk:John#RfC

Wheres you dignity Timothy? How unedifying!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

True true, but what can you do? Put up or shut up. --Domer48 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Connor Clune

From reading the book The Squad, I get the impression that he wasn't a Volunteer, he only went along to the hotel were he was arrested with Peadar Clancy, and was waiting in another part of the Hotel whilst the meeting was ongoing, also Collins later refered to Two Soldiers of Ireland killed not three, so it would appear he was just a friend of Clancy, I will see if I can find anything else on him.--Padraig (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I have read there is debate about this, some places he is claimed as a volunteer others not. BigDunc (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

He may have been on the fringes without actually being a Volunteer.--Padraig (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats true I will see if I can find where I read that he was a Vol. BigDunc (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I hear what your saying about Collins refering to two Volunteers, but remember Clune got buried in his home county, Clancy and McKee were buried together. What about what I was thinking, that he was innocent in the sence that he had no part in the planning behind the cairo gang? Now I know at the moment I can not reference it and probably won't but that would explaine the differences of opinion? --Domer48 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Came across this which seems to suggest he was a civilian, scroll down to November 21.--Padraig (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

He was a Volunteer, see Image:Commemorative plaque Dublin Castle.JPG, the NGA have him listed.--Padraig (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to use that, you have stolen my thunder! Seriously though, I do have a number of sources to support the view that he was a Volunteer. --Domer48 (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Peadar Clancy

I see that I may have misjudged you; if so, I apologise. Alice 08:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Interrogation

Your chief interrogator now wants to censor replys on her talk page regarding yourself. Open and fair debate doesn't seem to be on her agenda. Have a read and see what you think. BigDunc (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a few questions of my own to ask. Bad form removing your comments though. I will not be distracted by any of this, I enyoy editing and thats all that matters. --Domer48 (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is still productive to have a dialogue with Domer48 since it is not clear that I should assume bad faith in his case. There are many avenues you can pursue on WP, BigDunc, if you wish to have an "open and fair debate", but my talk pages aren't the best venue because of the very limited audience and my clear categorisation of you as "someone who can't recognise biased prose when it jumps off the page and bites them in the bum", BigDunc. Alice 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Domer48: I need to do a little more research before I respond to your latest response on my talk page - I have rather limited access to Irish materials and I want to check a few facts before I respond further. I also feel it would be easier for both of us to arrive at some conclusions if it were a dialogue rather than a free for all (it might become more heated and less enlightening if all the various "POV pushers" that categorised the "Ulster Banner"/"Sectarian Rag" "debates" show up). Just let me know if you don't wish to continue a dialogue because you will be lacking support. Alice 20:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There she goes with the patronising Domer, thats step one seems like she has judged you too, very good at judging people she is, watch for the conditional apology removal when you dont tell her what she wants to hear.BigDunc (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the time being, the diff's which suggest I have a WP:COI would clear the air a bit. Alice, when you get to know me a bit more, you will quickly see that I do not need any support from anyone, I can do just fine on my own. A quick look at some article talk pages will show you that. By the way your holy trinity of editors would be included in those “POV pushers” you mention above. --Domer48 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful to stereotype editors too much, which is why I put "POV pushers" in quotes (either normal or "scare") above.

I'm hoping that you've learnt a lot since those old diffs, Domer48 and that, if you answer some simple questions unequivocally, it won't be necessary to dredge up old edits.

And I do understand your stance that seems to jive with my own: better a rational dialogue than a free-for-all. Within a few days I will respond on my own talk page since it seems that we've at least agreed the basic format of a dialogue rather than a multilogue. Alice 02:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice, the diff's you provided were on my civility, that has nothing to do with WP:COI. What I would like is diff's which you consider or suggest WP:COI. Please dredge up old edits, if they suggest WP:COI, because once that bug bear is put to rest, we can realy move on. What I have learned though, is that there can be a lot of accusations, but no substance to them, that is why on wiki we insist on diff's to support such claims. --Domer48 (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of having yet provided any diffs whatever (whether concerning civility or COI) with respect to you, Domer48. Are you confusing the 4 diffs I provided for BigDunc's contributions?

For me, civility is no big deal - I am pseudonymous after all and I certainly have not noticed your civility being a major problem - my main concern is editors that are technically smart but introduce a clever agenda of bias; plain vandals are much easier to deal with. Please be patient and within a week I think we will make real progress; either the air of unsubstantiated allegation will have cleared or you will have neglected/refused to answer pertinent questions. Alice 10:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

John_O'Leary_(poet)

I put a proposal for a move on the talk page, it we get a consensus then the move can be made.--Padraig (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah nice one Pádraig, fair play. --Domer48 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)