| Revision as of 18:38, 8 November 2009 editDomer48 (talk | contribs)16,098 edits Undid revision 324685688 by John (talk)← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:40, 8 November 2009 edit undoDomer48 (talk | contribs)16,098 edits tidyNext edit → | ||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
| ==Troubles Case== | |||
| Domer48, edit-warring on an arbitration case page is extremely unwise. This kind of behavior could lead to being placed on probation, so please don't do it again. Instead, just focus on the articles? You've been doing good work there, that's the best use of your time and attention. --]]] 15:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Isn't it '''you''' that is edit warring Elonka? Threats of placing someone on "probation" are extremely unwise and only likely to enflame the situation further.--] (]) 15:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Completely agree VK, admin bad blocks me, and then edit wars about a clarification of the bad block. <span style="border:1px solid green;padding:0px;">]</span> 15:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| There is a whole host of comments on that section, but only one that gets removed. I had to smile when I seen the edit summary "section is for logged actions, not comments." Elonka please don't accuse me of edit-warring again! --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sinn Fein== | |||
| Please refactor your comments about other editors' perceived delusions, thanks. Just keep comments at the article talkpage focused on the article. --]]] 22:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Please stop being slective in your posting! When You ignore this coupled with the editors comments and not to mention equally uncivil edit summaries . I'll not be refactoring my comments and they are not uncivil or a personal attack. They do describe the editors opinions. Now if my comments are considered offencive to the editor involved I replace it with something else, considering your slective opinions I rather you don't post on this talk page again. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Okay first, I don't read every single comment on every talkpage. Neither do I read every edit summary, nor watch every article. I just don't have the time. Instead, I skim, and usually try to make my warnings timely. I'm less interested in what was said two days ago, than what is being said today. As for being selective, I warned both you and Valenciano, and have asked both of you to refactor. If you do, I'll see it as a sign of maturity and good faith. If not, well, we'll see how it goes. --]]] 22:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| More threats? I've told you already that my comments were not uncivil or made as a personal attack! Now you were aware of and yet we don't see any talk page posts! I don't see any request from you to have and you were fully aware of them? As I've already addressed the issue , there is no reason for any responce. Now I've ask you not to post on my talk page as a sign of maturity and good faith I'll hope you respect that. Thanks --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| On the off chance I'm still on a number of watch lists might go un-noticed. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 23:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Campbell & Thompson == | |||
| I have started two RMs for ] and ]; your input would be most appreciated. Regards, ]] 14:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sound, I was going to do it myself. Nice job. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Reverting== | |||
| Domer48, at ], you made a sweeping revert, cleanly wiping out 24 extensive changes to the article, and effectively returning the article to your own last version from several days earlier. This kind of revert is disruptive, and is not the way to engage in collegial editing. Better would have been to ''change'' text to try and find a compromise version. Please do not make any other reverts of good faith edits on this article. You are still welcome to ''modify'' text, but if you try to use revert as an editing tool again, you may have additional restrictions placed on your editing. --]]] 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I , but obviously not clear enough for you. Now I ask you above not to post on this talk page, now I'm telling you! Don't post on this talk page again. If you see anything that may concern you, use the article talk page in question. Once again, don't drop threats on this page, I'm editing well within policy. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: At ], you are permitted to revert obvious vandalism, and you can revert edits made by anonymous editors. But if you revert another good faith edit by an established editor, you may be placed under ], and limited to one revert per article per week for the entire Troubles topic area. To avoid this, please simply engage in collegial editing. Work towards compromise by ''changing'' text towards a compromise version, rather than reverting it. That is the best way to work towards lasting changes and a stable article. --]]] 18:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: And when did theses new guidelines get passed could you link me to where it was decided that ''if you revert another good faith edit by an established editor, you may be placed under ]''. <span style="border:1px solid green;padding:0px;">]</span> 18:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ]! Stay off this talk page! I've had enough of you slective BS on policy. No this talk page is for frank discussion, your block on Vin and Dunc indicates to me that you don't like to be told your wrong. The fact that dispite that you have been told to stay of this page and ignore it means you have an attitude. I will delete any more comments from you on this talk page, and you can just assume they were read. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Dunc, off the hoof! Please do not encourage the need for a responce, I've had just about enough of this nonsence. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:40, 8 November 2009
 | If you object to anything you read on this page, then the correct solution is to click here. Domer48 (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
- Pádraig, Rest In Peace a chara - sorely missed - not to be forgotten.
-- Trolls will be removed with Extreme prejudice!
Veteran Editor II
and is entitled to display this
Bronze Editor Star.
|
 Archives |
|---|
Useful links
Irish Manual of Style~
Policy ~
Assume good faith ~
Citing sources ~
Civility ~
Consensus ~
Dispute resolution ~
Etiquette ~
No original research ~
What Misplaced Pages is not ~
No personal attacks ~
Neutral point of view ~
POINT ~
Reliable sources ~
Verifiability ~
WP:Attribution ~
WP:Synthesis ~
tools ~
WP:Avoid peacock terms ~
Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel terms
Useful Noticeboard
3RR~ WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ~ Third opinion Noticeboard ~ Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard
Template messages
Warning templates ~ Template messages/Sources of articles ~ Template messages/Cleanup ~ Template messages/Disputes