User talk:Domer48

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

-- Trolls will be removed with Extreme prejudice!

This editor is a
Veteran Editor II
and is entitled to display this
Bronze Editor Star.

This editor is a Grand Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain.

Today is 16 May 2024

Archives
Archive 1 - February 2007 to December 2007 Archive 2 - Jan 2008 to December 2008 Archive 3 - Jan 2009 to December 2009 Archive 4

Useful links

Irish Manual of Style~ Policy ~ Assume good faith ~ Citing sources ~ Civility ~ Consensus ~ Dispute resolution ~ Etiquette ~ No original research ~ What Wikipedia is not ~ No personal attacks ~ Neutral point of view ~ POINT ~ Reliable sources ~ Verifiability ~ WP:Attribution ~ WP:Synthesis ~ tools ~ WP:Avoid peacock terms ~ Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms

Useful Noticeboard

3RR~ WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ~ Third opinion Noticeboard ~ Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard

Template messages

Warning templates ~ Template messages/Sources of articles ~ Template messages/Cleanup ~ Template messages/Disputes

Diff

[1]

Troubles Case

Domer48, edit-warring on an arbitration case page is extremely unwise.[2] 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. --Elonka 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.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree VK, admin bad blocks me, and then edit wars about a clarification of the bad block. BigDunc 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! --Domer48_'fenian' 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. --Elonka 22:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop being slective in your posting! When You ignore this [3] coupled with the editors comments here and here not to mention equally uncivil edit summaries [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9][10][11]. 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. --Domer48_'fenian' 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. --Elonka 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 this comment and yet we don't see any talk page posts! I don't see any request from you to have these comments refactored and you were fully aware of them? As I've already addressed the issue on the article talk page, 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 --Domer48_'fenian' 22:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

On the off chance I'm still on a number of watch lists this bit of incivility might go un-noticed. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Campbell & Thompson

I have started two RMs for Bobby Campbell (Northern Irish footballer) and Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer); your input would be most appreciated. Regards, GiantSnowman 14:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sound, I was going to do it myself. Nice job. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

Domer48, at Dunmanway killings, 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.[12] 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. --Elonka 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I indicated quite clearly on the talk page what I was doing, 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. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

At Dunmanway killings, 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 formal probation, 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. --Elonka 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 formal probation. BigDunc 18:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle! 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. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dunc, here is another new policy off the hoof! Please do not encourage the need for a responce, I've had just about enough of this nonsence. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)