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)
I was wrong. The above discussions have made me see this+I was wrong anyway.-- Misortie ( talk) 13:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 K 303 13:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
El
on
ka
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, -- El on ka 16:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
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):
Is that sufficient, or would you like more? -- El on ka 21:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
Shall I hold my breath waiting for a reply? 2 lines of K 303 13:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 K 303 14:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
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');
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)
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!
We agree? I'm scared. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
You need to relax, please. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I was wrong. The above discussions have made me see this+I was wrong anyway.-- Misortie ( talk) 13:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 K 303 13:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
El
on
ka
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, -- El on ka 16:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
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):
Is that sufficient, or would you like more? -- El on ka 21:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
Shall I hold my breath waiting for a reply? 2 lines of K 303 13:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 K 303 14:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
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');
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)
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!
We agree? I'm scared. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
You need to relax, please. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)