User talk:Domer48

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

Not in the mood today, due to the obvious reason outlined above.--Domer48 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Today is 14 July 2024

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

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

Regimental History

I have those pages scanned and ready to go. I need an e-mail address though. Could you reply to my internal e-mail to you please?GDD1000 (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Irish Famine

Domer, I'm sorry, but I've got to tell you that you're fairly close to a page ban on Great Irish Famine. All you've been doing is revert, revert, revert. Please refrain from making reverts to the article for the time being. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Ryan, but it is obvious to anyone who cares to read the discussion that I discussed, reverted, discussed reverted, discussed, discussed, discussed, and reverted. Now has my conduct been disruptive? I don't think it has, but I welcome any advice on how to move forward. Thanks for the advice though, is very welcome, --Domer48 (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

One more revert, or anything resembling a revert, and you will be page banned. Ways to move forward? Mediation, request for comments, third opinion, build a new lead from scratch ... but definitely no more reverts please. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Angusmclellan you will of course show good cause, and it would be helpful to indicate what I'm actually doing wrong? Have I breached any of our policies or guidlines? Have I not discussed all the changes? --Domer48 (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting is covered by Wikipedia:Edit war. As for Asmaybe (talk · contribs), we'll see. Thank you for the documentation. However, it is not up to me or Daniel or Ryan to decide on content. If you feel that people are straying away from what the sources actually said, as well as the talk page there is mediation, a request for comments, a third opinion, and all the various noticeboards. There's even one on "original research" these days. There is no need to get bogged down in argument. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration has little or nothing to do with content, which would include discussions of page naming, except where there are policy issues involved. No original research has quite a narrow meaning. It does not include "I don't think that the source says what you think it does" disputes. You should be able to work those out on your own. As for the name, the likelihood of the current name being kept seems close to zero. I suggest you look for a second-best choice. As for the rest, try dispute resolution. Edit warring will get you (and anyone else who does it) banned from the page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Domer48, I need to apologise to you for deleting your recent comments from my talk page. I was doing two or three things at once and also was carrying on two other WP conversations at the same time, and for some reason I thought your comments there were made by User:BigDunc, who I was talking with on a different page. (Must be the capital "D" in the name or something...) Your comment there was almost identical to one the other user had just made to me seconds before elsewhere, and I thought he was just copying his message onto my talk page so I knew about it, so I deleted it b/c I was fine to have the conversation where it was ongoing elsewhere. (If that makes sense ... — if not, just please accept my apology for deleting your comment; it wasn't intended to be a rejection of you or your comments, which I can understand it may have appeared to be. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Then again, now that I review it, it was you that made the comment, but it was just on User:BigDunc's talk page, and I didn't realise it was you and not BigDunc responding. Hence my confusion. Anyway, see above for the apology. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

A user requested a third opinion, but referenced this page. Where is the dispute, and can a 3O help? --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that can help is a liberal application of cluestick to the other editor, since he has not even read the article with the purported dispute. Domer48 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. 3O is probably not an option. I'll record it as participants don't agree to 3O. thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem ;) --Domer48 (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the user who requested a third opinon...are you all pro-IRA and in league with each other for God's sake.Crieff (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please. Just try to assume a little good faith on the part of other editors here. Discuss the issues with the article, and suggest changes by all means, but leave the personal attacks out of it. Consider this a formal warning - Alison ^❤ 22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to argue my case by asking him directly on his talk page why he has repeatedly removed my addition to the IRA page (which is factual based - the IRA being a "paramilitary" organisation and not "military" one, with the latter being officially sanctioned by a country or government, and the former not), deleted my addition to the IRA talk page asking why it was not accepted (and I assure you I was not in for the personal attacks at this stage). I requested a third opinion (As you saw) but the user deleted my contribution toward it (as it was I who suggested it), said the third opinion wasn't needed, forget about etc, and the other moderated agreed. His reasoning for deleting it was listed as "nonscence"(sic), which in addition to being spelled wrong, is also UNTRUE. I mean, what is this a joke? If you don't see this, then I guess you really have taken it upon yourselves to turn what was supposed to be an open source of information into just another propaganda machine.Crieff (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that it is clear that the third opinion is for the IRA page, I can take a look there. Discussion regarding the 3O should be ther only and not here. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Philip, please stop changing the policy

You wrote in the history of WP:V "Philip, please stop changing the policy, "Putting back the seperation of paragraphs" did not mention removing text"[1]

Please explain which word you think I removed with this edit and this comment "Putting back the seperation of paragraphs" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

ETA logo copyvio

Domer, I think this is the second time you say that the image NoETA.jpg doesn't respect copyright policies, or that it violates any copyright. I've opened a section in the image's talk page, so I kindly ask you to explain there in detail why do you think that. ETA's logo doesn't have any copyright, as I try to explain in there. Thank you, Escorial82 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger: the "favourite hate" name poll

You participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You're blocked for 31 hours, or until you apologise unreservedly for repeatedly calling Colin4C (talk · contribs) a liar, whichever is the lesser. No warnings? You know well enough what is and isn't acceptable, and Scolaire and Wotapalaver had already pointed out that this is not acceptable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You want me to apologise unreservedly? I'm not apologising for the truth. Shall I be diplomatic and say "Colin4C has presistently said a source says x when it says nothing of the sort", isn't that just a polite way of saying the exact same thing? Domer48 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be acceptable, yes. "Colin4C says <some book> says <something> but it says <something else>" is civil. "Blah is a liar" is incivil unless there is clear and compelling evidence that it is true, and that evidence doesn't exist here because you are arguing about how to paraphrase and summarise. Have a nice weekend, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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:

Since blocks are preventative not punitive I refuse to apologise for anything said, but I will not use those particular words in future therefore I should be unblocked forthwith. Domer48 (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Blocks are preventative and not punitive but Angus's request was a reasonable one and by declining it you don't leave me with the impression that you've internalized his advice to you. Take all the time you need to do so, but I'm afraid I don't think an unblock is merited. Sorry. — John (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2008 (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.

No offence John, but you're hardly impartial are you? Domer48 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh? How do you mean? --John (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, if Domer says he won't comment on any editor for the rest of the block, keeping him blocked would be punitive. One just has to look at the talk page to see that WP:AGF has not been shown to Domer from other editors on the page and the blatant stonewalling and antagonism that he has to put up with when asking a simple request of providing a reference. BigDunc^Talk 18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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:

As a matter of principle, I'm not apologising for speaking the truth. As I pledge to make no comments about any other editor for the duration of the block, the block is now rendering solely punitive and therefore a breach of the blocking policy for me to remain blocked. Domer48 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As a matter of principle. Consider it educational, not punitive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 20 June 2008 (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.

Call it educational if you like, gordon, but clearly the intent here is to punish Domer for his refusal to offer an apology that he does not feel is necessary or deserved. As BigDunc has stated, "Domer says he won't comment on any editor for the rest of the block, keeping him blocked would be punitive." This all seems rather clear. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Domer refuses to recognise the problems with his comments - "I'm not apologising for speaking the truth" clearly shows he still believes he did nothing wrong. Yeah, he said he won't comment on other users, but if he refuses to acknowledge his wrong doing, the block is far from punitive now. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I refuse to apologise for my comments, that is different. I acknowledged the problem in my first post following the block, can't you see it? Domer48 (talk)

I can't see it. At this point it seems you're just playing with words. If you can see the problem, why couldn't you apologize for it? If you do not feel the apology is necessary or deserved, then you should stay blocked for a while to give you a chance to reflect on our norms of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Offering to observe these rules, which apply to all of us all of the time, for the duration of the block only, is not acceptable. --John (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Any Admin watching this are condoning it with their silence, and pretending they did not see it. “Consider it educational, not punitive.” Have we just set a precedent here for being punitive, or petty? It is not gratifying but informative to see how the rules can be twisted and blatantly circumvented to make a point. I don’t feel the need to hold contempt for it, I simply acknowledge it exists. John please don’t post on my page, as you lack the wherewithal to be even amusingly petty. I have the choice of lying and saying I apologise unreservedly, or maintaining my self-respect, an easy choice. Wrong place for sackcloth and ashes folks, and I come out of it displaying more integrity coupled with a sense of humour. If given the choice, I would have given up my seat for Rosa Parks. --Domer48 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks but I'm not intrested. Thanks Sarah, your honesty and willingness to say it like it is will always be welcome. Rock, yourself and Peter stand over “Consider it educational, not punitive.” I don't need to say anymore on the subject, other than I'd rather you don't post on this page. The fact that Admins were struck dumb on the Arbitration enforcement because of Angus McLellan's intervention illustrates the nature of this block rather well. Ryan, why don't you close it as resolved, and file it away. --Domer48 (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Domer, if you are going to delete my comments on your page, then please don't replace them with a misrepresentation of what I said. I did not endorse the position that your block is "educational, not punitive." Whether you chose to sit this out or not, you should be aware that the sort of language that led to this block will not be tolerated in future (from you or anyone else). Things are getting out of hand on that page, among certain editors, and if it continues in that sort of poisonous tone I'll take steps to restrict those who cannot edit civility and good faith from contributing there until they can. Please try to return to that page with a fresh pair of eyes and leave the mistrust and accusations in the past. I'll copy this message to the talk page for other editors to consider also. Rockpocket 17:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

So keeping someone block to teach them a lesson is to be incorporated into the blocking policy then is it. You said you would unblock me but it would not have consensus? Policy overrides consensus even I know that. You simply lacked the will, or the conviction of your own opinions. You also know this arbitration enforcement was a valid complaint and you again sat on your hands. Now one admin thought the Mentors should act on the complaint, and so they did. . One points to something not even in the complaint at all. In fact ignored the complaint altogether. Why add something that’s not relevant to the discussion I wonder? Another admin who normally deals with ArbCom enforcement then suggests that the mentors should act on the complaint, and we get this little pearl of wisdom from another of the mentors. What’s the lesson here Rock, file a report and get blocked? Now policy trumps consensus. Editors who deliberately add hoax references to support their own opinion is in breach of policy WP:V, present it is such a way to become misleading WP:NPOV and refuse to support their WP:OR when challenged. I will not apologise for that. Consensus among editors to keep unreferenced opinion which breach our policies is overridden by those policies. I did not misrepresent you at all. You sit on your hands and allow it. Don’t come on my talk page making excuses for your lack of principle in relation to the selective application of policies. So Gordon did not teach me a lesson. Neither did Angus and neither did Ryan but I hope you learned something. Apply the policies in a clear and consistant way and I'm a productive editor. Offer advice and suggestions, and maybe even deal with the cause of the problems in place of shaking a stick at the results or tackle the cause, not just give advice on how to do tackle it and I'm a productive editor. Being able to tell fellow admins that they are becoming part of the problem and not the solution and you become a productive admin.--Domer48 (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It is one thing to have conviction of one's own opinions, but the key word is opinion. I have an opinion, which I expressed, but it does not supercede that of the blocking admin, nor that of the two reviewing admins. The unyielding belief that one's opinion is correct, and everyone else's is incorrect, is not conviction, it is arrogance. Its also, when administrative actions are concerned, what precipitates wheel-warring. So, I repeat my opinion: calling another editors a "liar" is not acceptable. Not during the length of any block issued for it, and not after that time. If you acknowledge that and pledge not to repeat it, I will unblock you because there is little justifiable reason for it remaining. If you continue to believe that is acceptable then the block will likely remain.

Finally, instead of stating what you think you know as a fact, you would have much more success in convincing people of your position if you express it an an opinion (which is what it is). For example, you state: You also know this arbitration enforcement was a valid complaint and you again sat on your hands. Two things: Its rarely a good idea to tell someone what they know, which you can't possibly be aware of. Secondly, you presuppose that I had even read that thread. For your information, this is the first I had heard of it. So, with those facts in your possession, you may wish to reconsider that sentence. Rockpocket 21:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I already said that right at the start. Domer48 (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not use those particular words in future hardly inspires confidence that you intend to be civil in future, rather than simply avoid particular words. Nonetheless, you should be aware that you will be unblocked on the understanding it is the spirit, not the letter, the you are expected to adhere to. A repeat of that sort of incivil language, not just a repeat of those words, will likely result in further, and longer, blocks. Rockpocket 21:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey save the unblock! I'll do the 31, let gordon have his moment. The unblock should not have been refused to teach an editor a lesson. --Domer48 (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that is particularly helpful either. Blocks, or unblocks, are not be about admins having their moment. Personalizing everything in that way makes things more difficult to resolve. Anyway. I have already formally requested that Angus agree to let me unblock you. I hope he will agree promptly and everyone can put this behind them. Rockpocket 22:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

POV categories

If [Category:State terrorism in the United Kingdom] is a POV category, does the same apply to [Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom]?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked you, Domer, on the understanding that you remain civil in future, particularly in reference to stating your opinion of other editors as facts. " What X states currently (dif) does not appear consistent with what they said previously (diff)" is a civil way of making the same point that got you blocked. It also provides ample opportunity for the person to clarify any misunderstanding that could resolve the inconsistency.

Angus tells me that he is considering how, within the remit of the ArbCom remedy, how we should resolve these WP:V-interpretation related incidents. I don't have an answer for you myself, but I do know that cool, calm discussion is infinitely more likely to resolve them that name calling.

I hope you, and the other editors that you were discussing the issues with, will read my plea on the talk page and take it seriously, because your knowledge on the Famine is second to none. Thanks. Rockpocket 23:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"It also provides ample opportunity for the person to clarify any misunderstanding that could resolve the inconsistency" - now there's an interesting quote. Now let's see what happened last time I discovered an inconsistency and tried to resolve it, right here. I assumed good faith that the sentence could be sourced by the book in question and that maybe I was missing something obvious, and politely asked if a chapter number and quote could be provided:

Having read the source indicated, and the page numbers provided I have been unable to find the text which supports the text below in the article. Quite possibly I reading a different edition, mine being published by Anchor Books, ISBN 0 385 72026 2. Could the editor please provide the chapter number and a quote to help me narrow it down? "Emigration reached new heights and the infamous coffin-ships crossed the Atlantic in large numbers carrying people fleeing from the famine."

Colin's responses:

• Is Domer really saying that in his edition of Keneally's book there is no reference at all to the Irish emigrating across the Atlantic in, inter alia, 'coffin ships'? Irish emigration due to the Famine etc is the theme of the whole book! Such emigration is extremely common knowledge in Ireland and elsewhere, is mentioned in hundreds of books and IS supported by the reference given. It is not original research.
• As per the policy read it for yourself: Thomas Keneally (1999) The Great Shame. London: Vintage: 135-40
• As per the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability Big Dunc read it for yourself: Thomas Keneally (1999) The Great Shame. London: Vintage: 135-40. If you have a different edition look at the index under "'Ireland': emigration from; and 'illness and death on emigrant ships'". This should convince you that at the time of the Famine the Irish emigrated to America, and died aboard ship in great numbers due to fever etc. Have you never read about this before? I thought it was common knowledge not something I made up. If you doubt this all you have to do is open the book and read the words. Please keep up!
• Just to say that I confine controversial original research to the Talk page. Viz: 'In Ireland it rains a lot', 'Ireland is an island' and 'It's a great day for the Irish' and other controversial statements too boring to mention....
• The policy says nothing about 'exact quotes'. Please keep up!
• Plagiarism is not allowed on the wikipedia. By the way Domer's addition to the verifiability policy has now been reverted. It is no longer policy. See Wikipedia: Verifiability.
• I just read it. Domer's additions have been reverted.
• I think you will find you are wrong, Domer. Check it. Or put back your alteration to the policy.
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks
• You'd better change this policy as well then: "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly. Calling someone a dick can be considered poisoning the well (a logical fallacy that is a special case of an ad hominem attack)."
• You want me to quote the whole five pages? Yes or no? Violate copywrite? Break the law? Yes or no?
• The text is a summary of information from the whole 5 pages of the book, which is why I cited 5 pages rather than one or two or three or four. As I do not have the time or the energy to transcribe five pages here and as it is against copyright anyway I have added an online ref to the text. I hope that satisfies you!

Check the history of Verifiability for yourself, the part about direct quotes from books being produced on request was in there for the duration of the discussion, and it was not a passage I originally added. How many "ample opportunities" did Colin4C have to produce the quote, or otherwise resolve the inconsistency?

Much has been made of the word "infamous", which neglects that "Emigration reached new heights" is still an outstanding issue. Dealing with "infamous", apparently it is ok for an editor to "summarise" and add POV terms which do not appear in the original text. I shall use a different example for the sake of argument, and someone who is dead to avoid any BLP problems. If I have a book and there are five pages talking about the activities of Oliver Cromwell in Ireland, is it ok to summarise my opinion of the content of those five pages and describe him as a "tyrant" in the article despite that word not appearing in the original text? Surely the issue is not whether another source could be found that describes Cromwell as a "tyrant", but whether the source I have said describes him as a "tyrant" actually does so? Domer48 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Qualitative adjectives, especially those with a whiff of hyperbole about them, should be avoided. Even when explicitly sourced, they should be attributed. Rockpocket 01:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if it helps here are a few explicit references for that descriptor:

• Raymond E. Crist, Migration and Population Change in the Irish Republic. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Jul., 1971), pp. 253-258: "Those that survived the famine and the Atlantic crossing in the infamous "coffin ships" were tough indeed."
• Tim Rutten, From `great hunger,’ hope sprouts. LA Times August 23, 2006: "Those waiting vessels have come down to us in history as the infamous “coffin ships” on which more than 20,000 immigrants died within sight of their promised land." (This also has an interesting take on the name issue: "Most of us know it simply as "the potato famine." But because the majority of its victims suffered and died innocent of English, its name in Irish better conveys the catastrophe’s simple terror: An Gorta Mor – “the great hunger.”")
• Michael J. Farrell, Irish Famine Museum topical as Rwanda, National Catholic Reporter, August 12, 1994: "Many left for America or England, thousands of them dying on the infamous "coffin ships" before reaching the promised land."
• Brian Wharrey. The Jeanie Johnston The Proud Irish Emigrant Ship is Reborn, Quebec Diocesan Gazette, May 2003: "The infamous “coffin ships” [are] most notably associated with the thousands of emigrants who perished on the transatlantic voyages in 1847. An estimated one and one-half million Irish people emigrated from 1845 to 1851, upwards of 30-45% dying in the “coffin ships” on their journey or shortly after their arrival at their new home."

Here is a references for the "Emigration reached new heights" statement:

• Emigration To North America In 1847, The Ships List: "The year 1847 was a unique year for emigration. Famine in Ireland leads the list of reasons for the increase in the number of emigrants in that year."

Will these go any way towards drawing a line under this debate? Rockpocket 02:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly you seem to have the same problem with sourcing that other editors have, you try and match a source to an existing sentence rather than matching the sentence to the source. From what I can see, the source you have provided would source "Emigration was higher than in 1846", but not "Emigration reached new heights". Unless of course the word "unique" is a paraphrase for "new heights"? Domer48 (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to find a way to resolve what I, personally, see is a rather lame debate to the satisfaction of everyone. When writing good articles, we don't source every single word back, Domer (not least because of copyright issues). Our best articles have plenty of paraphrasing for the sake of readability and we use our judgment to determine how to condense material into our own words. I happen to think "Emigration reached new heights [in 1847]" is a relatively accurate summary of what happened, and I think "The year 1847 was a unique year for emigration. Famine in Ireland leads the list of reasons for the increase in the number of emigrants in that year" supports that rather well (because it was clearly higher than any other year, and not just higher than the year before because this is written from a historical perspective, and it was also "uniquely" so). I'm assuming your goal is to have accurate information in the article. So could you tell me, do you have reason to doubt 1847 marked the height of emigration during the period? If not, how would you prefer to word a sentence stating that, because it seems a pretty notable fact? If you do doubt it, could you perhaps provide a reason why, because if you have a better source stating otherwise we could use that instead. Rockpocket 17:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is all well and good Rock, but paraphrasing is labeled "original research" when the shoe is on the Irish foot, so to speak. Sarah777 (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Webster, paraphrase means "a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form" - yet no less a body than Arbcom concluded that, in my case, this was original research. So one can readily understand why people with a different perspective would expect equal sensitivity to possible WP:OR. Sarah777 (talk) 07:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronoun Problem

You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban: Please read!

Please be aware that the mentors appointed by the arbitration committee to oversee The Great Hunger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) have determined that you shall be banned for one month from editing the article and its talk page, and for one further month from editing the article only, as noted here. The talk page ban will expire at 12:00 UTC on 23 July 2008 and the article ban at 12:00 CET on 23 August 2008. Please do observer this editing restriction. Failure to do so may result in you being blocked. If you have any questions, please let me know or leave a note here. Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Dormer48, I made the following edit to Talk:The Great Hunger, and it was reverted by Ryan Postlethwaite, for whatever reasons. I thought that IPs could add their voice to the discussions. What's going on? 93.107.67.124 (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Silly decision

If any editor be banned from this page, it should be Colin. He has caused disruption by insisting false referencing and citation. Dormer48's input is very important to this ongoing discussion. A rather over-reactive development, may I add. 93.107.67.124 (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of "good cause", given that I currently feel I am being punished for past "crimes" when I have already improved my behaviour following certain incidents. Domer48 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Good cause? On the talk page: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]; looking at [9]you managed an average of 8-10 edits a day to the talk page, and that would be objectionable in itself in these circumstances. Reverts on the article, those you'll be able to find as well as me. A "pattern of behaviour" thing. While no one diff is damning, a hundred make a damn good case. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I see one diff there that is since my block, so am I being punished (or "educated") for past behaviour or not? Regarding the reverts, how many have there been since I was "asked" to refrain from reverting on 29 May? Domer48 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A good question, not least because the history makes it difficult to see exactly what is a revert. At a guess: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] in less than two weeks. That's quite a few, don't you think? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don’t believe that answers my question. There is one diff since my block? --Domer48 (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have looked at the edits just before those in the history [15] [16] [17] etc, where edits I made were reverted without discussion taking place, something you are supposed to be preventing. Domer48 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The block is unrelated. As for the failings of other editors, tu quoque is an ad hominem, and generally a fallacy. It is your behaviour that is at issue here; the actions of other editors would at best be mitigation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Was this not also unrelated and yet you provided this comment here. Now Ryan says they are related here. Could you explain? --Domer48 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the reverts, how many have there been since I was "asked" to refrain from reverting on 29 May?--Domer48 (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't, and don't, see any connection there. If Ryan does, well you'll need to ask him why that is. Aren't five or ten reverts enough? How many do you think you should have been allowed, per day or per week? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Highest edits out of last 250 edits "The Great Hunger"
Colin4C	78
Dormer48	45
Wotapalaver	23

I think the above table sheds a new light on the topic. Colin4C appears to be in the lead in the editing/revert field, almost twice as active as Dormer48. 93.107.67.124 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look into this in detail but it appears that there is a lack of understanding at senior Admin level hereabouts that tu quoque is a natural, understandable and justified reaction when justice is not seen to be applied evenly and fairly. Could Angus/Ryan etc please simply provide diffs to "offences" committed by Domer since the block only, in the clearest possible manner, so that we may see what the justification for this punishment is? Sarah777 (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How many reverts have there been since I was "asked" to refrain from reverting on 29 May? Put another way, having been asked to refrain on the 29 May, did I in fact do as requested? Yes or no? --Domer48 (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers!

Good to see you back and editing, Domer! As my priest once told me "Non illegitimus carborundum." I think I remembered the Latin correctly. Keep up the good work. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)