Talk:Domhnall mac Raghnaill

message: "Had the their rights"  doesn't sound right - is the "the" surplus to requirements? 87.114.135.201 (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in final quotation?

message: That 19th Century illustration in the infobox doesn't really improve the article IMO, if noone objects I'd rather we remove it. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to object, until I realised that it's not actually an illustration of the the subject of the article, which confuses the article. I'll remove it now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration

message: This article has Harold Godredson succeding Harald Olafson in 1249, while Harald I Olafsson as well as our list of kings of Mann (King of Mann) has Ragnvald in between them. Which is correct? Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Raghnall ruled for 24 days according to the Manx Chronicle. The text here doesn't actually say there was no Raghnall in between. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well and good then :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency re Kings of Mann 

message: I was asked to take a look here. What's the issue exactly? --John (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Deacon was canvassing/campaigning for support, to win the exchange above. We've had conflicts in the past. He seems to think that because he's an admin he should always get his way. The result is the occasional revert of my edits, followed by a cute message on my talk page. Last time I told him to stay away, but after more friendly relations recently he did his thing again. Deacon is also responsible for my only block ever, and once tried to get me banned at the noticeboard in a manner similar to his appearance on your talk page. I wonder who else he has contacted. DinDraithou (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, John is the user who saved you from a block/ban after you were going around making comments about Scottish people not so long ago. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A block/ban you tried to cause by lying to the community, telling them I was following you around, when in fact the opposite was happening. Also there were no "highly idealogical edits". You made that up too. That discussion then got wild when some guy who wasn't even an admin (and still isn't) came in pretending like he was. DinDraithou (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (non admin intervention) It would serve this project well if we used this talk page to discuss this article, and not the conduct of editors active here. If there is a user conduct problem that requires admin intervention that is better discussed at that users talk page or at the relevant admin noticeboard. I don't see the need for admin intervention at this article (the tools available would be protection or deletion, neither of which is required). I'll be posting on the content of this article right after saving this - let's keep the content discussion there. Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin intervention