User talk:Domer48/Archive 4

Oki I understand.

I have been browsing several Ireland related articles (I’m English of Irish decent, I had relatives involved in both sides of the argument ie unionism/republicanism) and I was just observing some of the stuff going on here^^. While to the untrained eye your user page may seem a little harsh there really is nothing against the English but against specific Individuals Which is what User:Misortie was missing the point. And besides, you didn’t write it! O.o I don’t really like Nationalism tbh and I tend to stay away from it, so I probably wont comment on it much. Regardsss~--Yuka Chan (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries Yuka Chan, the quotes are about historicial revisionism and as you note is nothing against the English. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

About Punch though, were the writers genuinely anti-Irish or were they just being satirical? (Or a bit of both?) --Yuka Chan (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It was part of a culture of the time and was rascist IMO, portraying the Irish as Simian creatures, chimp-like, with long arms and the long upper lip of the monkey, and The Times' editorials excoriated the Irish at every turn for their "want of character", fecklessness, hopelessness, and so on. BigDunc 12:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think there is satirical and then there's this. Jack forbes (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not very amusing those^^. --Yuka Chan (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It was really just about imperialism and a superiority complex the upper classes had against the Irish. Thankfully, the English aristocracy has been virtually destroyed (And I do *Love* walking around there houses, oh sorry the houses that they can no longer maintain due to a lack of Wealth/power so they give them to the national trust and English heritage LOL!) and we live in much, much better times.--Yuka Chan (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Per Jack above, Punch also had a role on how history was and would be recorded, along with the racist overtones, "Cartoons in Punch portrayed the Irish as having bestial, ape-like or demonic features and the Irishman, (especially the political radical) was invariably given a long or prognathous jaw, the stigmata to the phrenologists of a lower evolutionary order, degeneracy, or criminality." There is a fair bit of this documented [1][2] and it illustrates revisionism.--Domer48_'fenian' 12:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unconditional apology.

I was wrong. The above discussions have made me see this+I was wrong anyway.--Misortie (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's better. (An this is my only edit 2night...I'm off to bed lol)--Yuka Chan (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Domer48/Archive 4! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 04:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

suggestion

delete the F word, sentiment is correct but no need to give anyone an excuse for a block --Snowded ^TALK 18:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, done!--Domer48_'fenian' 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just read it again, why did I not just do it like that the first time? --Domer48_'fenian' 18:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Editors like MoorTwin can drive you to it ...--Snowded ^TALK 18:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

His latest effort on SF talk page is like Déjà vu. BigDunc 18:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Groundhog day more like --Snowded ^TALK 18:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In Ireland we can use certain words as if they were verbs, adjectives etc, I was just using it for emphasis on this occasion however it was not needed, as was pointed out above and I removed it. I actually told them I would not like to see them get caught on some bull shit block, seems they are not listening! --Domer48_'fenian' 18:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not with fragile American admins about. BigDunc 18:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I resemble that remark.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If the cap fits as they say. Our American cousins have very sensitive ears and don't use language the way the Irish do. BigDunc 19:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Very selective sensitive ears! --Domer48_'fenian' 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true if supposed aggression is brought down on you then even an Arb will let you away with calling another editor a cunt, fuckwit and a twat, very selective alright. BigDunc 19:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My nephews mother in-law, a Dubliner, swears like a trooper. Lovely church going woman she is. I don't even think she knows she's swearing. In saying that, Glaswegians don't generally hold back on that front. Jack forbes (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

With this new tread being nothing more than a wind up when considered against these Editors comments [3][4][5][6][7][8] I've proposed to archive the various treads. If they want to open a WP:RfC or some such thing let them take it there or somewhere else but lets clear up the Article Talk Page for construct discussion aimed at improving the article.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Martin McGuinness dispute

I would like to invite you to participate in a discussion over whether to use "deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" or "Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" in the infobox on Martin McGuinness, because that article's editing history shows you to be a major contributor. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Martin McGuinness#"deputy" vs "Deputy". HonouraryMix (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Irish Freedom (Fenian Newspaper)

I noticed that you moved Saoirse (Fenian) to a new title. I'm just wondering if it would not be better at Irish Freedom - Saoirse or Irish Freedom Saoirse based on this. If the current title is the best then should it not be at Irish Freedom (Fenian newspaper) (without the capital N) or Irish Freedom, both of which are redirects to the historical publication? By the way I re-wrote it a bit as it looked a little like a copy and paste. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Two different papers. Irish Freedom was never called Irish Freedom Saoirse. Republican Sinn Féin's newspaper is called Saoirse Irish Freedom. I've no problem with Irish Freedom (Fenian newspaper) (without the capital N) or Irish Freedom. I'll build it up when I get a chance. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Martyrs

I think we've had some disagreements over this article in the past, so I'd like to run it by you again now. I want to add just a little bit more info on the reprieves of O'Meaghar Condon and Maguire, possibly explain the false names that some of the accused gave, and admitted to in their speeches to the court, and add a few citations to support some of the statements in the final section. When that's done I'd like to take it to GAN.

Is there anything in the article now, or in what I'm proposing to add, that grates with you? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Got any socks?

As I certainly have, and there's another equally disruptive one from the same sockmaster as well. What a pity the disruptive sockpuppeteer in question didn't take any notice of what was said last time he was caught socking, I seem to remember a community ban was mentioned. Still that'd be no great loss, he's been nothing but a whinging POV warrior for years now! Sock report to follow... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this the one our old admin friends backed up? BigDunc 14:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Old and new! This is getting beyond a joke!--Domer48_'fenian' 14:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward to the report on the sock. I'm considering putting one together on dishonest claims and accusations and a double standard that is applied to editors. Any time you ask to be given a Diff to support claims you get ignored! --Domer48_'fenian' 14:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe it's one you are referring to no, although I could tell you a story or two about an editor you're currently having problems with. Got slightly sidetracked with a more pressing problem, it'll all be sorted in a day or two though. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Look forward to it! I'm just going through the motions with this editor at the minute, its going to RfC as a first stop. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we're talking about different editors, will fill you in on the details later. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries a chara, I have a good idea who your on about! Look forward to the report and then the excuses. I was just spouting above about a problematic editor. I've a pain in the arse with it at this stage it needs to be addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating ArbCom probation by reverting more than once per week at Sinn Féin. 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. Elonka 16:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The block is for again violating 1RR/week probation as listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Specifically, at Sinn Féin, you reverted Jtdirl (talk · contribs) on January 19,[9][10] and then reverted Snappy (talk · contribs) on January 22.[11][12] Per the terms of your probation, since you have been blocked, this extends the expiration date of your probation, to April 22, 2010. Please let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 16:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your pettiness really knows no bounds! Now I'll deal with it at the Admin recall against you. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That you have failed to support your probation on me and provide the diff's you were asked too you have a really serious conflict of interest. I will address your abuse! --Domer48_'fenian' 20:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with the block, you are welcome to request a second opinion via the {{unblock}} template. As for recall, my conditions are at User:Elonka/Recall. --Elonka 20:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

History

Since you keep insisting there are no diffs, here's a summarized timeline from mid-October, of administrators who were dealing with you (including myself):

• October 12, warned about edit-warring by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs)[13]
• October 20, warned about edit-warring by SarekOfVulcan[14]
• October 25, warned about civility by Elonka (talk · contribs)[15]
• November 4, warned by Elonka about edit warring on Arbitration case page.[16]
• November 6, warned by Elonka about civility[17]
• November 8, warned by Elonka about edit warring.[18]
  • endorsed by John (talk · contribs)[19]
• November 9, banned by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) from editing Peter Hart (historian)[20]
• November 10, blocked by Angusmclellan[21]
  • Unblocked by SarekOfVulcan[22]
  • Ban questioned by Tznkai (talk · contribs)[23]
• November 11, placed on probation by Elonka[24]
  • endorsed by SirFozzie (talk · contribs)[25]
• November 26, cautioned to "tone it down" by Spartaz (talk · contribs)[26]
  • endorsed by Chillum (talk · contribs)[27]
• December 16, blocked by Elonka for violating 1RR probation.[28]
• January 19, cautioned by Elonka about civility.[29]
• January 22, blocked by Elonka for violating 1RR probation.[30]

Is that sufficient, or would you like more? --Elonka 21:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Still no Diff's to support your placing me on Probation for edit warring? The above diff's are really just a poor transparent attempt at justification/well poisoning. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As shown above, you were cautioned about edit-warring on October 12, October 20, November 4, November 8 (by two different admins), and on November 9 you were banned from editing Peter Hart (historian) for disruptive behavior. The diffs are all above, and some of the diffs even link to more diffs. Why do you keep saying there are no diffs? --Elonka 22:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Still no Diff's to support your placing me on Probation for edit warring? The Ban from editing Peter Hart (historian) for disruptive behaviour was lifted as being without foundation! Again more frantic attempts at well poisoning. The fact that you are aware of this illustrates how unfit you are for the position of an Admin. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The ban placed by Angusmclellan was not lifted. Checking Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, the ban is still active. There were definitely questions about it, but it's been supported by multiple administrators. So as long as the ban is still logged at the arbitration page, it should be considered to still be in force. --Elonka 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sad really? You know full well the ban was not valid in the first place and just because the Admin had not got the good grace to strike it does not mean its still in force. That you would even attempt to suggest that the ban was "supported by multiple administrators" is an insult to the inteligence of both editors and admins who read the discussion on the admin's talk page. It was straight after it was dropped that you placed me on probation really really bad form. Still no Diff's of me edit warring which would support your placing me on Probation for edit warring? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Domer, why don't you just leave it? Who gives a shit who said what or when they said it. I agree with you on most of what you say but I don't see where this is getting you. Tell me to piss off if you want, but I think you should drop this. Jack forbes (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack we have an issue with Admins who have a problem telling the truth. I'm supposed to be on probation for edit warring but she will not provide the diff's of me edit warring and I'm now blocked for violating a probation which I dispute. She makes claims and accusations which have no basis in reality. Check this one out here or this one here and maybe you'll grasp what the problem is Jack.--Domer48_'fenian' 09:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, I get it. Elonka is providing some diffs of you being warned for edit warring but not the edit warring itself. Jack forbes (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You got it! Exactly the same as here --Domer48_'fenian' 11:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Good grief, how on earth are you still an admin? Actually I know part of the answer to that already, since you've deliberately chosen recall terms that are extremely unlikely to ever be met. What's the problem, I guess you know that given the chance the community would give you the boot you richly deserve? Still, there's more than one way to skin a cat but we'll sort that out later. I have many questions, but I doubt I will get answers to most of them since previous experience tells me you'll just run away without answering them. So on that note, we'll deal with the still outstanding questions then move onto the ones relating to this latest joke.

1. Going back to the "discussion" (and I use that term loosely since you refused to reply to my points once you realised you didn't have a leg to stand on) here. Why is your claim that you can issue any sanction you see fit to any editor at any time not only contradicted by a proposal you were involved in having failed, but is also directly contradicted by your earlier own admission? So did you; A) Lie about having the power to issue any sanction you saw fit to any editor at any time? Or B) Deliberately waste ArbCom's time with a frivolous amendment that would have given you certain powers in one specific topic area when you later allege you've got God-like powers across the entire project? There is no option C), so pick one and be damned please.
2. Why, given you warned the editor in question about the 1RR restriction here, did you not take action over this breach (also note the blatantly false use of minor edit flag, and no edit summary either) of 1RR, where there were two reverts in 3 minutes? And don't give me any flannel about the first edit not being a revert, since the revert definition is "in whole or part" don't forget. You're not possibly going to claim that there's no similarity between the first version and the previous day's version (especially compared to the previous lead) so I don't recommend trying it. Perhaps you took no action because he's an admin? Or rather than me speculating, why don't you tell us why you did not block him?
3. Why given Domer believes you are involved in a dispute with him about whether his probation was correctly applied in the first place, a dispute which I certainly agree exists, are you taking admin actions against him? Why not make a report at WP:AE and let someone else handle it to avoid any possible accusations of impropriety?
4. Following on from the previous question, did you actually investigate the issue before deciding whether a block was needed, as that would certainly have happened at AE? If you had, you might have seen this. Scolaire points out that "there is not even the beginnings of a consensus" as to what one particular bar in the chart should display, and suggests removal while discussion is ongoing. Snappy says there's no consensus to remove it. All well and good so far, but then what happens? Despite there being absolutely no consensus as to what that bar should display, Snappy updates it anyway. You have to love tactics like that, if someone wants to remove it while discussion is ongoing then there's no consensus but if Snappy wants to change it he can change it to whatever he wants despite the lack of consensus for that either. So Domer reverts until there actually is a consensus, and lo and behold you turn up and block him straight away. Could he have been blocked for breaching his probation? Quite possibly, but the correct question is whether he should have been and a proper investigation of the situation would have shown you exactly which editor was being disruptive yesterday and it wasn't Domer. The editor actually being disruptive gets nothing said to them, and Domer gets a week off A week for that is a Stalinist punishment, there's no two ways about it.
5. Since when do you or the wider community have the authority to amend the terms of probation from an ArbCom case, seemingly without a valid and actioned request for amendment from ArbCom? Assuming you do have that authority, why has Irvine22's probation not been similarly extended due to his blocks while on probation?
6. Why are you alleging that any page ban exists for Peter Hart? No such ban exists, as I detailed in full here (which you'll note that no admin dared to reply to, there seems to be a pattern round here doesn't there?). Since silence = consensus, the mere fact that not one admin replied to that post saying "yes, there is a ban" means the consensus is that there is no ban. If you're going to ban someone using an ArbCom remedy, you'd better make sure you've followed the procedure that the remedy specifies. So where are the diffs that support the procedure specified in the remedy? Unless any admin claiming the ban is valid can actually provide those diffs, the ban does not exist. The fact that it's logged onto a page where non-admins can't remove the fraudulently applied ban is irrelevant, unless just one admin can provide the diffs there is no ban. The diffs should have been provided at the same time as the ban was logged, so it isn't even logged properly So either provide the diffs required by the remedy now and add them to the log, or admit there is no ban and remove it from the log?

Shall I hold my breath waiting for a reply? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to the answers to these pertinent questions from Elonka. BigDunc 14:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I appears there will be no answers forthcoming! We don't need to assume good faith with this so called Admin with the multiplying examples of dishonesty. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

More unsupported claims!

Elonka calims here at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles that the "final remedies" are supported by community consensus, and directs editors to this discussion in October 2008 and "remedies remain in force indefinitely." This is totally untrue! As a result of this discussion here in April 2009 it was determined that the sanction at issue were not part of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles and that the sanctions were "a community sanction, not an arbitral remedy", and the Admin assumed therefore "that the case page [would] be amended to reflect this." The case page was not amended to reflect this but the determination was reluctantly was accepted at the time. It would amount to basically a discretionary sanction as some Admin's would enforce it and others would not.

Elonka then having put me on probation in response to Angus having his improper ban on me over turned then tried to encourage him on his talk page to start a thread at WP:AN about discretionary sanction, and since he though better of it, she had to do it herself. This request for "Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents was rejected, and although she claimed to accepted this as not having any consensus, she still went just a couple of hours later and chanced her arm at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment but alas, she had no luck there either. Despite this, Elonka has insisted on applying discretionary sanctions on editors and refuses to provide any supporting evidence for them. This needs to be addressed! --Domer48_'fenian' 22:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Care to supply some diffs of me applying discretionary sanctions in this topic area? --Elonka 23:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been supplying diff's left, right and centre of your carry on. Now were are the diff's of me edit warring, that lead to you placing me on probation!--Domer48_'fenian' 00:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for any miscommunication. The term "discretionary sanctions" is very specific, as regards certain areas of arbitration enforcement. However, they are not authorized in the Troubles topic area at this time, and to my knowledge, I have never implemented any discretionary sanctions in this area. The diffs that you referred to there, are simply enforcement of arbitration remedies, meaning to place an editor on probation, and to enforce revert restrictions. To see the exact wording of the available remedies, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies. Specifically: "To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations.". Hope that helps clarify? Best, --Elonka 01:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Now were are the diff's of me edit warring, that lead to you placing me on probation!--Domer48_'fenian' 10:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Remove this unsupportable 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:

The Probation which was placed on me was based on an accusation of edit warring. Having been repeatedly asked for diff's of me edit warring by a number of editors [31][32][33][34], and for the Admin to support there accusations no supporting diff's have been provided [35][36]. The Admin was advised to go to either WP:ANI or WP:AE but declined to do so. I have not edit warred, I've no intention of edit warring, and none of my actions warrant a block.

Decline reason:

You were validly made subject to an arbitration enforcement probation prohibiting you from exceeding 1R/week at [37]. If I understand you correctly, you do not dispute that you violated that probation, but you contend that the reason for that probation was invalid. That is not, however, subject to review here. If you disagree with the reasons for the probation, you should have appealed it to the Arbitration Committee instead of violating it. Be advised that you may be made subject to an indefinite topic ban if you continue to violate arbitration enforcement sanctions.  Sandstein  13:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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

Sandstein we've come to expect nothing less for the likes of you! --Domer48_'fenian' 14:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for a laugh, and show you up, please provide the diff's to support your claim that I was "validly made subject to an arbitration enforcement probation"? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

So nothing forthcoming then on the diff's? Maybe if someone done a little investigating they might find the diff's, and if not? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if an Admin asked her nicely for the diff's to support her accusations it might help? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And in case I was mistaken as to which diffs you wanted, here's evidence of you edit-warring on or about 11 November, when the probation was imposed. The Sinn Féin article is the most obvious: 10 November, 9 November, 8 November, ... you can look at your edits elsewhere and you'll find other cases of edit-warring, but none are quite so repetitive. If I'm still wrong about what you're after, leave a message here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The probation was imposed here at 01:13, 11 November 2009 less than an hour after your silly and unsupportable page ban on me was concede on your talk page. So it could not have been those diff's because it notes previous discussion between you both and beside even three reverts in three days does not exceed 1RR unless 1RR now means 0RR. In addition, you also had these edits here [38][39][40][41] in addition to these [42][43] spot the problem? Anyhow what about these edits and be sure to count Dunc Valenciano Me Mooretwin Dunc Valenciano Me Scolaire Mooretwin Mooretwin Me GoodDay 213.94.188.113 check out the note on their talk page on 1RR Valenciano Mooretwin.

So lets see

• 1)No violation of 1RR
• 2)Two editors who did not take part on the talk page reverted but not cautioned!
• 3)Only one editor informed of 1RR so she knows what 1rr is and cautioned no one else despite their edits.
• 4)Editors continued to revert after the 12th
• 5)I've always used the talk page
• 6)I edited inline with consensus

Nah still need Diff's of edit warring! Now before any more of the Scottish brass band of Admins show up, or anyone else for that matter, provide Diff's of Edit warring that support the Probation. No Diff's, you get removed! PS Angus you illustrated 2 reverts over three day and one edit so no edit warring on or about the 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 November! And she did say the Sinn Féin Article. Now if editors want to use diff's after the 11th please do so. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's three (actually four: 18:26, 6 November 2009) reverts because the edit is 17:43, 4 November 2009. Forget 1RR and 0RR, edit warring has nothing to do with those: 1 revert a month, if repeated for a while, can be edit-warring. My favourite, because it descends to levels hitherto unseen in anything Troubles related, is this. And it's not like you can pick and choose who'll try and answer your questions. Right now your choice is between me and nobody, because nobody else seems to be interested. If nobody is who you want, just let me know and I'll fuck off and leave you in peace. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your right forget 1RR and 0RR, edit warring has nothing to do with it. If that was the case all the editors involved would have been sanctioned. Your also right about this. There was me moving off to Laudabiliter to work on building an article and to be folowed there dose descend to levels of pettieness hitherto unseen in anything Troubles related, and that includes your blocks and bans, but Joco had to more or less tell them to leave me the fuck alone, lets face it, even Elonka and you followed me there. Now there is not and never was a hope in hell of that block being lifted, but tha was not the point. The object was to show the likes of you up for what you are! Its that simple! Take you for example, look at the blocks, bans, and probations you put me on, over turned, says alot about your judgement! There are a couple of sound Admin's out there, there just not on my talk page, and though I have very little in common with them and them me, I respect there decisions. Touch wood they will show up when I put forward my RfC, otherwise I'm left with the likes of you and your mates. No point responding, I've got all that was useful I'm going to get from you, unless you want to illustrate more of the slective nature of the sanctions? There is SarekOfVulcan another example, all they have to do is put there hand up and say, fuck that block I put on you was OTT and they might do ok, but the worst thing you can ever do is try to cover up a mistake it just makes it worse!!! --Domer48_'fenian' 14:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking you should hold fire till you put forward your Rfc, gather all your evidence together and others will gather theirs. That's where any decisions are going to be made which is why I think you should wait till then. One more thing Domer. I thought Rockpocket was trying to be helpful to you, though perhaps you saw something in it I didn't. Well, this is an opinion from this Scotsman, one who is neither an Admin or member of any brass band. :) Jack forbes (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's sound Jack! You are not and never have been a part of the brass band! Hang around long enough and I'll point them out, they should be along soon! --Domer48_'fenian' 15:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to anything else

A friend of mine living in Ireland tweeted this map today -- thought you might get a kick out of it. :-) http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/440-dissuasive-cartography-the-emerald-desert/ --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks for disruption and harassment

Domer48, since it seems that you are incapable of realizing when your question has been answered multiple times (see: [44] [45] [46] [47]) and continue to fill up talk pages with harassing and intimidating edits basically right after your last block expired, I've blocked you for two weeks. Looking over your contributions for the past few weeks, it is clear that your main goal at this point is to harass and intimidate an uninvolved administrator who placed you on probation and blocked you, and this is unacceptable. You have, quite simply, gone far over the line. I want to make it perfectly clear that this block is not in response to your intent to file an RfC on Elonka. If you decide to continue down the path that you're currently on, that's fine, as long as you keep it to official channels, such as WP:AN, WP:AE or WP:RfC. Berating other editors in any capacity will no longer be tolerable behavior from you. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read this discussion. Your claim of harassment that you made here seems very familiar. Now you block is bogus, and it is in support of Elonka! You is one of very few Admins out of the hundreds on wiki to get her own sub page here. Now you said here you could pick out the diff's, well now is your chance! By they way, do you think the block will prevent the Request from Comment?Domer48_'fenian' 18:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think this block will prevent your RfC on Elonka and as I said above it is not intended to. Perhaps you could even use the time to put a nice polish on it so it's all ready to file when you get back? It is clear from the diffs in the message above that you remain intent on harassment and disruption even when blocked, so unless you cut it out, I'm amending the block to disable your talk page as well. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Who said I would be filing the request? I'm not the only one who has asked her to respond. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, you did, right here: [48]. But it really doesn't matter who files it. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You blocked me right after I posted that! You suggested that I should use the time to put a nice polish on it, now obviously you though you were being smart? I simple point out that it will probably not have to wait two weeks. Your right though, it really doesn't matter who files it, but you will be mentioned it, that's a fact! --Domer48_'fenian' 19:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bad block. Thank you. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:24, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

You have mail

I have also commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bad Block, and would especially draw your attention to my suggestion as regards further interaction with Elonka while you are formulating another dispute resolution process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and I'll work on my report off site, to reduce tension. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A chara, just in case I was not clear I have "no reason to continue contacting Elonka over this matter," on her talk page and I undertake not to do so, having said as much in my last post on the Editors talk page. Thanks again for the review. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Um, another missive has winged its electronic way to your mailbox. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Sound! Off to bed. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock

Domer48, as you know, LessHeard vanU and I have been working towards an agreement under which your block can be lifted. I think that both of us can agree that he has done an excellent job as an impartial mediator in this situation. I originally placed your block because of your continued pursuit of discussion when, in my opinion, escalation to the next level of dispute resolution should already have happened. If you can agree not to return to that behavior, but to move the dispute to the proper venue (should you still feel the need), I can agree to lifting this block. However, in addition to that I must also ask that you voluntarily accept what LHvU calls "best behaviour probation" for the remainder of the original blocking period, which ends 2010-02-13 18:37:49 UTC. During this period, even the slightest transgression from appropriate, civil behavior will result in your block being reinstated. In the case that you do have a problem during this time, you are welcome and encouraged to contact either myself or LessHeard vanU directly for assistance before responding. If you agree to these terms, please note as such below, and I will lift your block. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please note that, unless there is an urgent requirement to block, that any sanction will be enacted by me. This is not a policy matter, but a private arrangement between the three of us - ending as noted above - to get you back editing. Any other probations or restrictions, etc, remain in place. I hope this is agreeable to you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• • That's sound a chara, I can live with that. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll find yourself unblocked now. :-) Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Very happy that so many worked their ass's off to get the block lifted. See you around (not necessarily on the same side of the fence). RashersTierney (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 00:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Diarmait na nGall

I saw you reverted something on Dermot MacMurrough. Which made me wonder, is the "Republican", or even mainstream, Irish view of Diarmait Mac Murchada still that he was a black-hearted villain as our anonymous contributor thought? F. X. Martin and others have disagreed with this (if I understand right, Martin's No Hero in the House was the first "revisionist" history of our man here). Irish books are like hen's teeth in bookshops here, so my reading is limited to the ones I order off the internet. If there's any serious criticism of the Martin view of Diarmait I'd like to try and read it. Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Watchers count

http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py

It's also accessible from any page's history list, at the top, the "Number of watchers" link. Enjoy :) Equazcion ^(talk) 21:26, 5 Feb 2010 (UTC)

FYI

It appears that you are now allowed to make 2 reverts in a week while on probation, I informed Elonka that I would tell you of this development. But maybe it is only certain editors with who they enforce this rule on.BigDunc 09:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Who are yea telling!--Domer48_'fenian' 10:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Added to RfC. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Socks

Just when I think I'm on top of things, I discover what new account (the second one, for the record) a certain editor has, and on top of that he's currently at ANI facing possible sanctions! Oh if only they knew his prior record, looks like I'd better push him right to the front of the queue doesn't it? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

SysopDectector

Adding this to your monobook.js might be faster than using the tool above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js');

Heh. I typoed the title in exactly the same way that the original author did. Weird. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The navigation popups gadget/javascript also integrates a user group reporter as well. Anytime you hover over a user's signature it shows all of the permissions groups they are in as well as an edit count. Kinda nifty! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 22:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Voting on Arbitration pages

Please do not place votes in the arbitrator-only section of arbitration pages, as you did here. I have reverted your changes, as you are not an arbitrator. Daniel (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that what that knocking shop is? Arbitrators? Is that what they are called? Sad!--Domer48_'fenian' 22:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Tut, tut, Domer. Remember, you belong with us plebs. :) Jack forbes (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Any day of the week, Jack! --Domer48_'fenian' 23:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I understood that you're an Irishman (I wish I can visit your wonderful country some time soon!), so you understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving your great culture, country, music and language! Slán agat! Capsot (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC) By the way, your first page is really nice and interesting!

Giant's Causeway

We agree? I'm scared. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Carol Ann Kelly 12 yrs in her coffin.JPG

Notwithstanding any questions as to whether this image is appropriate, the discussion at NFC has focussed oddly on the fact that this image is scanned from the cover of a book. It's not a book I have, but I'm guessing you do? Is the same image used inside the book too? If you could upload a scan of that as a replacement, it might deflect some of the current argument to delete it, which is based solely (and wrongly, IMHO) on which page it was that was scanned! Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Plastic bullet

Whether it is being discussed or not, there is no rationale, it fails the NFCC. This is not difficult. Your actions are incredibly disruptive. J Milburn (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It is being discussed on the NFCC talk page as to wheather or not it fails, and as pointed out your actions need to be tempered. that you were not aware of the 1 RR, you must at least be aware of editwarring? But like you say, now you know. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no. It fails. Look at NFCC#10c. It fails that criterion. No amount of discussion or sophistry can get around that fact. Dear God. J Milburn (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to relax, please. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is not difficult, yet you do not seem to understand. Hence the repetition. You are undoing edits removing non-free content and apparently engaging in discussion on non-free content when you apparently have next to no understanding of our non-free content criteria. That is a little upsetting. J Milburn (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are finding it a bit upsetting have a cup of tea and just relax. Now it is being discussed and thing can and often do change, so relax. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The image is in use when it clearly should not be. Please, just remove it. J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please use the NFCC talk page, that is were it is being discussed. The image is a picture that is being used on the cove of a book. It is not a Book Cover. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. There is no rationale. What is there not to understand here? J Milburn (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the Article talk page? Not to worrie, I have another book which has the same image, we will most likely end up using that. Bye. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You have another book? Oh, ok, that's nice. There is still no rationale. Do you actually understand what I am saying here? J Milburn (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You really are getting a bit frantic, and will have to calm down. Now bye bye. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn - you may be right, but your actions are still wrong. This image is under discussion at present. Edit-warring over it whilst that discussion is ongoing undermines the collegiate basis of the project. This is especially bad when it turns into wheel-warring: protecting an article and then the admins being able to change it how they wish, at the exclusion of other editors. Once the discussion has concluded, it can (if so decided) be removed then - and even if I disagree with the conclusion, I will still go along with it, because that's how we're supposed to work. This is not a BLP-libel image that we must remove immediately, and there are also a number of editors who support its inclusion - the debate outcome is not a foregone conclusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing how this is controversial. There is no rationale for the image. It umabiguously fails NFCC#10c, and therefore the NFCC, and it therefore cannot be used. I don't care how many people are discussing it, or whether someone somewhere doesn't like the policy. There is a specific excemption to the rules on edit warring for exactly cases like this. Domer48 has shown, repeatedly, that he doesn't have the first clue about the policy. Yes, assuming good faith and things are nice, but competence is also required. And no, protection to stop various policies being abused is completely legitimate. We have policies, it would be nice if people would respect them and at least make an effort to understand them. And Domer, I'm perfectly calm. The problem is that I am making a perfectly simple statement, and people are responding with weird, outlandish nonsense. What am I meant to do, recite nonsense at them to argue with them on their own terms? J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You're still missing the point entirely.

Firstly, NFCC#10 is trivial. If the image is suitable, meeting NFCC#10 is merely a filing exercise to record this. Failing #10 is never a reason to remove an image, although it's obviously a reason to update its metadata. You could yourself have done this, if you saw it as so essential. Personally I didn't, because I saw it as so unimportant for the moment that we could let the real debate over its appropriateness run to conclusion, then sort it out then.

Secondly, you're missing the point. This is just one article. I don't give a damn about it. Doing the wrong thing happens regularly on many articles, the project has to be strong enough to cope despite that. Yet the core of the project is the set of behaviours we agree to work under, because they span all of the articles. If we start to slip on those (and using protection to over-rule discussion is one of the worst mistakes we could make), then we damage the entire project. If there is single-party or paired edit warring on an article under discussion like this, then IMHO it would be better to block editors than to protect articles.

If you're going to spout WP:COMPETENCE, then I'd also suggest that it's incumbent on anyone visiting Northern Ireland, the Balkans or Circassia to make themselves familiar with the local rules first. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy if J can not be civil just ignore them, that is what I'm doing. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Poster Turf Lodge.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Poster Turf Lodge.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any other obvious venue for discussing this, so here goes.

Who produced this poster? It's claimed to be from the UCAPB, but it looks like a more issue-generalised "Brits Out" from Turf Lodge. If it is a UCAPB poster then it's justified for use from UCAPB and arguably from Emma Groves, but if it's a Turf Lodge poster then it doesn't seem especially relevant to either of those. Probably still relevant, useful and justifiable to other Belfast articles though. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Emma Groves.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:Emma Groves.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Carol Ann Kelly

An obvious comparison can be made with Tyisha Miller, another article that was nominated for deletion recently. It's easy to get bogged down with WP:MEMORIAL and WP:VICTIM, while forgetting that WP:N is the most important indicator of notability.

I'd be surprised in this case if there weren't at least a few national level (Irish Times, etc.) newspaper articles that specifically discussed Carol Ann Kelly in a non-trivial way. Might require a few hours at a library... Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Spending a few hours at a library is my favorite pastime. I will get a couple of quotes. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Carol Ann Kelly 12 yrs in her coffin.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Carol Ann Kelly 12 yrs in her coffin.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Admrboltz (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Poster Turf Lodge.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Poster Turf Lodge.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)