Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 10

message: I consider it only right to clarify a couple of points in order to address any misunderstanding that may arise from the recent discussion. Sony has made a number of allegations and I feel they should not go unremarked. Sony has brought manipulation and misrepresentation to an unprecedented level, and can be illuminated thus:
Having made an accusation against me , I replied in a like manner, suggesting they take another look,  at the edits and see the mistake they were making. Obviously unable to cop their mistake, they replied, . Left with no alternative, I had to spell it out slowly and step by step, . Still not the brightest, the alternative being just disingenuousness, I stated it straight out, . I then became a bit more direct, , not liking people who prevaricate.  Finially I got the answer, long winded, but an answer, and they concluded with a retraction, . Conciliatory messages all round, from me, , from them, . And move on! Not so, another discussion, and what do they bring up, the quote, . A bit miffed, but I keep it cool, , and I get another apology, , with of course some self justification thrown in for good measure, Sony clearly states and addresses Sarah on the quote. I step in to put this to rest and hope that is the end of it, , but that would have been the end of it! Full blown discussion, ignored my offer, and yacked on and on! And then slips the quote in again, directed at me and a totally unrelated subject . First I dismiss it and let it go, but hey its not me, I have a pop, . And they makes the same accusation again . I’m at this stage not having it and make it known, . And all you get is the same crap again, . I have been patient, tried tact, got annoyed, all to no avail. Sony is argumentative, manipulative, disrupting, and provocative and is a self-perpetuating rambler. Unless they are challenged, their clearly established pov pushing agenda will lose wiki some good editors. Now having set the record straight, I’m done with this conversation, and this editor!--Domer48 11:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say Domer, I know exactly how you feel. (Sarah777 12:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above was originally posted to User_talk:Domer48 and was posted here by Domer48. --sony-youthpléigh 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And what if I did post it here? This is were the discussion is! You are lying again, and anyone who reads my post, will notice that you can not stand over your accusation and therefore change the subject of the complaint. You accused me of changing a quote to suit my alleged POV. Now, no more BS! --Domer48 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manipulating and disruptive editing  

message: User:MarkThomas, the editor who had this article locked, has had nothing but a disruptive influence on this article. They have created the conditions which gave rise to a number of disputes. In addition, they have continually baited editors, one of whom is the subject of a Rfc. That it is not just this article is evident, and forms a clear pattern of disruption. They refuse to contribute referenced material, preferring to add opinion, which they consider as good as, if not better than any reference. Any reference they dislike and which dose not reflect there opinion, is either Republican in origin, therefore biased, a minority view, folklore, or one which is only held by extreme nationalists. They have also abused the 3rr policy by baiting editors with malicious edits. In addition, playing the victim, and using Add min’s in a calculating way has been common practice. If this is to continue, Wikipedia will lose any decent editors they have, and discourage any potential editors. I consider that the lock on the article was inspired and perpetuated by this editor. Below are just some examples, and this is only three articles!
The Great Famine Article
Removed information which they accepted, but removed, with comment and no reference, 
Baiting and abusive comment, removed referenced information, 
First contact, questioning source, no problem, 
Unqualified comments, and opinion, 
Baiting an editor, 
Baiting comments, Re anti British, 
Baiting editor, 
Baiting the same editor, , notice edit comment.
Baiting editor, 
Argumentative, baiting editor on Rfc, 
Baiting editor on Rfc, 
Baiting editor on Rfc, 
Having provoked a reaction, wants apology. 
Baiting editor on Rfc, 
Argumentative, and suggesting POV, 
Accepts things one minute, 
Unreferenced comment, questioning referenced ones, 
As before, 
Blocked for baiting editor, 
Unreferenced comment, 
Referenced of the net, , very contentious issue, I left it alone. 
Insinuation and bad faith comment, 
Questioning, but not referencing concerns, just comment, 
Accepts a source, questions same source, build an uncivil case 
Contradicting themselves, and questioning source again, POV suggestion, 
POV pushing, questioning source they agreed with, 
Analysis, comment, opinion, no references, 
Baiting, argumentative, 
Bad faith edit, baiting, 
Argumentative 
Bad faith edit, POV, Baiting, 
Assertions, Opinion, argumentative, 
Baiting, 
Adding unreferenced opinion, 
Baiting, 
Questioning sources previously accepted, POV pushing, 
Reasonable, 
Baiting, POV pushing, 
Argumentative, Baiting 
POV Pushing, Baiting, 
Baiting, the trap is closing, 
Baiting, provoking, harassment, 
Now the victim, 
In goes the report, 
Notification, abrupt, 
I make my point, 
We love to play the victim, 
Making a point that has noting to do with them, 
Other editors get involved, 
Argumentative, baiting, 
Clearly lying, 
Argument, 
He’s now asking for references, 
Another lie, 
Comment, opinion, cites no sources, he’s words enough, 
Peddling the bait, 
Comment, opinion, cites no sources, he’s words enough, 
A bogus report about me, 
Constructive at last, 
Inculcate editors, 
Go with any point if it contradicts Sarah, 
Rambling comments, opinion, 
Baiting, 
No citation, no references, 
Start another RV battle, 
Opinion, no reference, 
Needs back up, POV pushing, 
Out to wind up, baiting, 
Playing the victim, 
Baiting, 
The trap opens, 
Wider, 
Added opinion, baiting, 
Removed referenced quote, 
Helpful, 
Victim again, 
Trap failed, put on a block, 
Victim, still wants a block on me, 
Victim, hurt, wounded, 
Needs back up, accusation, 
Vindication, at last, 
Defence of backup, 
Oliver Cromwell Article, is next for a lockdown!
Inappropriate statement, , “Republican History,” no references, just comment.
Argumentative POV, 
A total rewrite, 
Baiting, 
Opinion added to article, baiting, 
British Isles
Suggestions of anti-British 
Baiting Editor: 
Suggested statement of fact, no reference: , i.e. . “no serious scholar”
Use of the term “extreme view”  to have an alternative view. 
Removed unreferenced material, , backed up with unreferenced comments. 
Removed a tag, they felt unnecessary, 
Unreferenced comment, 
Changing a referenced quote no substantiated with a reference. 
Argumentative edit, 
Comment, POV, Opinion, 
Baiting editor, 
More opinion, 
Getting references, still waiting, 
Regards--Domer48 17:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent research Domer. I was preparing to do something on those lines myself in my response to the RfC, but when the process was reduced to a forum for trolling, abuse and was been taken as a green light to launch personal attacks on me I had to call a halt. One of the editors you mentioned had to be blocked for repeated personal attacks, despite numerous warnings; and I noticed the total refusal of one of the instigators of the RfC to condemn the abuse I was getting. He "couldn't see any abuse"; thankfully an Admin had better eye-sight. (Sarah777 19:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this remark above by Domer48 accusing me of "Bad faith edit, POV, Baiting" on diff no 57, which refers to a small (and correctly referenced) change is solid evidence that Domer48 (and by agreeing with this above, Sarah777 by inference) regard any content disagreement as evidence of bad faith. MarkThomas 15:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manipulating and disruptive editing II  

message: I tend to doubt anyone on this talk page is a truly bad person, as is insinuated over and over,  so maybe if you treated each other with a little respect you'd get the same in return.  What you should be doing is workshopping these POV/Baiting/Bad Faith edits on this talk page before editing the article itself. Al1encas1no 02:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ)  • 19:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man, ya'll need to take it easy.

message: I've open a check user request to see if Pappin76 or SeaOfTranquility are puppets of anyone involved in the current ArbCom case. --sony-youthpléigh 14:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the IP number be in there as well Sony? Amused to see myself and SirFozzie included as well! :-) MarkThomas 14:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your ongoing Harassment has been reported. --Domer48 15:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Domer, you're getting taking this the wrong way. 1. I moved you comments to the talk page because they are not a request for checkuser but talk about the request. 2. I don't have no ill intent with the request - both you and I know it will show that Pappin76 is not you, I just want to know who it is. 3. I think Marks requests is without foundation, but so what if he does ask for it - again, you and I know it will show that Sarah is not you!
Finally, please stop posting comments such as "This is all part of a campaign of Harassment" in response to my post. I am not harassing you. Why on earth would I harass you? --sony-youthpléigh 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check user 

message: (Edit conflict) There now appears to be another SPA/newly created account who has found its way very quickly to this article.  After Domer and it (SeaofTranquility) were both given 3RR warnings by me, its been reverted to Domer's version by GoldHeart.  Can I at this stage plea for calm and a moratorium on edits until Arbcom look at this?  In any case, I've gone ahead and requested full page protection. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New SPA?

message: I would just like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for the genuinely touching welcome, did I just say touching? What I meant to say was, hostile, intimidating and accusatory.
Having submitted my first edit 2 day ago, I have been the subject, of what in my opinion is some sort of concerted effort to intimidate me off WP. At least that's how it feels to me, firstly I was accused of being "Blatantly Incorrect" in my edit summary by Bastun, secondly sony-youth calls for some sort of checkuser, which I understand to be a type of 'get that guys address' or IP address at least but the sentiment is the same, thirdly Domer48 seems to have some sort of problem with my choice of Beckett as a reference and finally on the second day I stand accussed of being some kind of puppet who according to sony-youth couldn't possibly have the ability to edit a page, which I find very patronising and insulting, as editing a page is hardly rocket science.  By the way for those interested I have confirmed my IP address with WP so again thank you all for the fine welcome, maybe the next time a new user does something that displeases you guys, you might consider reaching out to the person on their talk page and offer advice before being so judgemental.  By the way I will be notiyfing Admin about this horribly unwelcoming reception fraught with suspicion and allegation --Pappin76 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, Pappin. I've left a message on your user page which I hope will explain the situation. --sony-youthpléigh 22:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Pappin, I stand over my comment about your edit summary, which was blatantly incorrect.  It stated: (Added unused source J. C. Beckett in the introduction).  The actual changes were far more substantial - over 70Kb worth.  That, plus the fact that it was first ever edit, and to an article already in the middle of an edit war - well, its understandable if people jump to conclusions.  Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 22:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello User:Pappin76, my comments were not directed at you, but at the self appointed edit police. About your use of Beckett as a source, and that particular quote, I thought you where using the same logic as another editor, only difference you could provide a reference! Which is more than most, and thats your first edit. Work away with Beckett though, between the two of use we might be able to pull this article together. Welcome to Wiki, and don't get the wrong idea about the place from this, its usually worse. Take care and have fun, Regards --Domer48 22:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Fine Welcome 

message: The only content dispute on this article is the content some editors don’t like. They consider the worst material added is that which is referenced. If it’s wrong and has a citation tag, the only problem is the tag. Now until such a time as an administrator steps in and challenges this it is going to continue. This is not a contentious article, for anyone to suggest it is, is missing the whole point. It’s the editors who make it contentious.  I suggest one rule, back up everything you add with a reference, source citation. That will put a stop to the trumpeted up little POV merchants, who like to have lock pages. So is there any Administrator out there who wants to put this article on their watch list. Review what been added place it on Article Probation. If not, locking it is a poor excuse. --Domer48 08:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: trumpeted up little POV merchants... er, WP:NPA, Domer. As the editor who requested the pageblock, I assume you mean me.  Please apologise.  The reason I requested a lock was because an edit war was underway.  You yourself reported 2 editors for breach of 3RR yesterday - and the closing admin there warned you.  I hadn't edited the page since 25th June, and when the edit war broke out, I didn't participate, instead appealling for calm discussion, twice (see above).  I've also already explained to you that the version that gets locked is without prejudice to what should be the correct version.  The lock is now in place.  It can be lifted early - that depends on discussion taking place here, and consensus being arrived at.  Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concencus on what? --Domer48 09:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Article probation|Article Probation]].  

message: I've asked User:Bastun to request to have the article unlocked. --Domer48 13:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is - are cooler heads going to prevail now (on all sides) and is edit-warring going to be avoided?  If yes, everyone's sure we can move on and discuss changes on the talk page at least for the time being, then I will ask for the protection to be lifted.  Alternatively, we can leave it there for another few days and in the meantime use the {:editprotected} template on this talk page to request an admin to make the agreed edit. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that - but we all know that the article is going to be reverted by Domer to "his" version. If that's the case, and I don't mind, then I'm going to perform an equally thorough rewrite (the "Background" section is particularly poor) - and there's no guarantee that MarkThomas won't simply revert before then. In that event, I don't want Domer crying foul (or that I'm persecuting him, or that I'm anti-Irish, or I'm anti-NPOV, or whatever else). Alternatively Domer could explain what issues exist in the current version and we can work to resolve them together. (I suspect, however, that even asking for this will to taken as a sign of my serpent-like mastery of deception - Ha ha ha! I am so evil and manipulative!) --sony-youthpléigh 15:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I feel that unless Domer48 and Sarah777 (when she gets back from her hols) are willing to commit to actually discussing changes in a reasoned way on the talk page, the page should be perma-locked, since from their behaviour so far, they are absolutely committed to deeply POV edits on this article, distortion and misleading allegations against other editors and an utter refusal to enter into anything remotely resembling Wikipedia discussion. This should probably apply to other articles edited by Domer48 in particular as well, but sadly my attempt to get him sanctioned for his repeated incivility only ended in a pointless Arbcom full of lies and false accusations. Suffice to say, I'm in favor of the page remaining locked! Domer48 will now respond. When you do Domer, please say why you have refused to sign up to SirFozzie's attempt to introduce Community Mediation to these issues. Thanks. MarkThomas 16:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sony, I think you seriously need to sit down and take something! You seem to be under some sort of strain or pressure. I’m under the impression that you use some kind of medication and possibly have forgotten to take it.  As to you persecuting me! I suggest that it would be like being savaged by a dead toothless hamster in a bright yellow raincoat. But less of the niceties, I will edit as I wish, and will only be constrained by the policies outlined and applicable to all editors. Now if Mark wants to play their petty games, that’s fine. I will not rise to it, as the other editors on the article will ensure that this disruptive behaviour will not be tolerated. Now the issue is resolved so the block should be lifted! No preconditions and no predicting the outcome!   --Domer48 16:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this last contribution by Domer48 is a model of how to get blocked for incivility on Wikipedia. I just marvel that this hasn't happened to you Domer - I presume most of the admins are on holiday! Anyone in doubt can see for example Sony-youth's talk page where Domer48 states that he finds reputable editor Sony-youth "to be grossly dishonest apt to prevaricate and manipulative". Anyone ever going to intervene with this sorry excuse for a Wikipedian? MarkThomas 16:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said I will not rise to this type of edit or editor , I'm like a calm lake on a winters morning. --Domer48 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The reference you just cited is to your own accusations Domer48, none of which are true. Once again you attempt to pull the wool over people's eyes with obfuscation and distortion. It isn't working. You appear to be stuck at stage 2 of WP:GRIEF and unable to move on. Your false allegations, distortions, deliberate confusions and conflagrations will not help. Discuss your edits in a reasoned way before plunging in and you might get somewhere. Until then, you may as well pack your bags and find something else to do. Although you do offer a bit of entertainment with your endless hypocritical little twists and turns, like "not rising" (tee hee) as above. MarkThomas 16:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These conscientious editors concerned to improve Wikipedia. Which ones? Plat time is over, unlock the article --Domer48 16:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Were you an only child Domer? MarkThomas 17:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlock Article 

message: So Sony, Is it agreed we unblock the article?--Domer48 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't just up to Sony, it's either a consensus on the talk page (consensus is not achieved because Domer48 will not enter into discussions about obtaining a consensus) or an admin can unblock it. If it is unlocked, until Domer48 is willing to discuss changes properly and abide by the CEM, I am sure that it will be relocked as soon as Domer48 begins another mass-editing campaign against the article. I also find it puzzling Domer that only today you stated Sony-youth "to be grossly dishonest and apt to prevaricate and manipulative" and yet here you are asking him to arbitrate on the unlocking. How peculiar. MarkThomas 17:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: While it may appear as bad faith on your part sony, I would suggest that edit warring with admin watching would not be very clever. Just to make it clear, you did agree to accept my offer, did you not? Why back tract now, because of treats from an editor? Let them blow all the steam they want! Thats if you wanted the article unlocked in the first place and are not using this as an excuse? --Domer48 18:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's two of you, Domer. The article was locked (twice) over edit warring. If that's going to continue, then there's no point in unlocking it, is there? (There was an admin watching last time, and, if you recall, you reported Mark for 3RR, the admin involved decided that Mark had done nothing wrong but that "if Domer48 reverts again, he will be blocked, and that will be that.") --sony-youthpléigh 19:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you accept my offer yes or no? --Domer48 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good gracious, Domer! Its Mark you were edit warring with, its him you need to agree not to edit war with again, not me. Ask him! --sony-youthpléigh 20:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok Sony I know! Its just Mark accused me of lying and I did not want to let it go unanswered. I know you agreed with me!!! Listen don’t worry about mark, wiki policies will deal with them, and there will be no edit war. They have to back up every single objection they make with references and not opinion! Should improve the article no ends!! --Domer48 20:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreed for Article Unblock 

message: Unless there is agreement on how to continue without edit warring I don't see how unprotecting the article is useful. --sony-youthpléigh 18:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it may appear as bad faith on your part sony, I would suggest that edit warring with admin watching would not be very clever. Just to make it clear, you did agree to accept my offer, did you not? Why back tract now, because of treats from an editor? Let them blow all the steam they want! Thats if you wanted the article unlocked in the first place and are not using this as an excuse? --Domer48 18:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's two of you, Domer. The article was locked (twice) over edit warring. If that's going to continue, then there's no point in unlocking it, is there? (There was an admin watching last time, and, if you recall, you reported Mark for 3RR, the admin involved decided that Mark had done nothing wrong but that "if Domer48 reverts again, he will be blocked, and that will be that.") --sony-youthpléigh 19:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you accept my offer yes or no? --Domer48 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good gracious, Domer! Its Mark you were edit warring with, its him you need to agree not to edit war with again, not me. Ask him! --sony-youthpléigh 20:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok Sony I know! Its just Mark accused me of lying and I did not want to let it go unanswered. I know you agreed with me!!! Listen don’t worry about mark, wiki policies will deal with them, and there will be no edit war. They have to back up every single objection they make with references and not opinion! Should improve the article no ends!! --Domer48 20:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree 

message:  I would like to replace this edit: 
Suggestions of Genocide (point 4)
Professor James Donnelly states that the amount of scholarly attention dedicated to the Great Famine has expanded enormously, since the official sesquicentennial commemoration of the famine in the years 1995—7. As a result of this impetus with numerous other scholars, he made contributions to the “extraordinary surge” of publications. The “flowering of famine scholarship” he maintains has given academic respectability to the view that the famine was genocide.
With this edit: (Note I have included the reference)
"England’s oppression of Ireland began with the Anglo-Norman invasion of 1169. There followed centuries of rebellion by the Irish and further genocidal campaigns by English rulers—none more savage than that launched by Oliver Cromwell. The Great Rebellion of 1798, the Fenian uprising after the famine in the 1840s, the Easter
rebellion of 1916, and the courage of hunger strikers like Terence MacSwiney in 1920 and Bobby Sands in 1981 have shown the strength of Irish resistance."  Ireland Unfree, edited by Martin Mulligan, Chapter 1, by Sean Flood, Pathfinder Press, Sydney, 1981, 
As was agreed with Sony, . That is the issue between us resolved. 
Should Sony Agree, I would like to add this one also. If they do not they can let me know why? But remove the agreed reference regardless. 
"In the long catalogue of British crimes against Ireland, the deliberate starvation and virtual forced emigration of a large section of the Irish population in the middle years of the last century must stand out as one of the most abominable atrocities ever committed by one nation against another."  Ireland Unfree, edited by Martin Mulligan, Chapter 2, Graham Milner, Pathfinder Press, Sydney, 1981, 
--Domer48 20:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Protected edit declined, thoroughly fails WP:NPOV. Sandstein 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Sandsein, couldn't have put it better myself. --sony-youthpléigh 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace quote as agreed with Sony 

message: I asking Sony “…are you now going to accept this offer , a simple yes or no will suffice.”
Sony’s reply “That's all I was ever interested in…”
I’m a bit slow on the uptake so I said “Ye, Ye are you finished twisting; the question was yes or no!”  (Sony gave a long winded answer) 
Sony replied “You really do have problems. Yes. Take out the misquote of Donnell. How many different ways do I have to say that?”
And I said “My apologies Sony, I see by your opening line that you will accept that offer. It’s just when I seen the tome you’d written I viewed it through distracted eyes. Sorry about that.” 
End of Conversation until Mark entered the fray. Sony did not intervene to point out the error of Marks ways, mark said it did not matter anyway!
Unlike most stories there was no happy ending. --Domer48 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we not in agreement that it should go? Didn't we agree to "Take out the misquote of Donnell"? --sony-youthpléigh 22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The agreement with sony 

message: Done. — Scientizzle 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit 

message: Now tell you buddy Mark to keep is babbling rants and fairy tales to himself. Ask for the page to be unblocked and let the referenced information do the talking! Do not use Mark as an excuse! There will be no edit war! Plenthy of discussion though!--Domer48 22:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you want the Donnell reference removed as agreed or not? Yes or no will suffice. --sony-youthpléigh 22:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YES...--Domer48 22:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Then could you do us a favour and sign your name to the request above? Thanks. --sony-youthpléigh 23:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request unblock Sony 

message: I hesitate to ask this, but it is encyclopaedic...
I do some research in old London magazines and so on. In one, a humour magazine from ~1860 (I'll have to dig it out) there's the most shocking bit of supposed comedy about Irish and rotten potatoes. 
Do you think this would make a good sidebar, to help illustrate the English callousness, or would that be unnecessarily controversial? Adam Cuerden talk 06:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They would be great! Ones from 1845-1850 would be great also (just as callous/plain ignorant of the facts). I've looked around on the internet, but the one's I found were of quite low quality so I left them be. It is a very important aspect of the whole thing. The tabloid news media was just as influential on English public opinion then as it is today. --sony-youthpléigh 08:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Adam Cuerden, the magazine you mention is Punch. I will post links to it later for you. Regards--Domer48 08:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fun, actually, though I have no doubt that Punch had similarly shocking articles. Discovered it when researching some of W. S. Gilbert's works for it - I'm glad to say this definitely was NOT one of his, but it's on the same page. I'll dig it out today and type it up. Adam Cuerden talk 08:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No Problem on that Adam Cuerden, the most common one used is usually Punch, but your right about their shocking sence of humour. --Domer48 09:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: Would editors here be prepared to accept the mediation of an uninvolved third party group composed of content editors to arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself?
*Agree: --Domer48 10:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only with explicit (and immediately inforced) consequences for edit warring, refusal to engage in discussion, etc. plus powers to arbitrate on disagreements, etc. I think Mackensen's proposal on the ArbCom talk page, is a solid way forward for the time being. Keep the article locked, changes should be proposed to a comittee of supervising editors with the right to aribtrate the content. --sony-youthpléigh 10:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AGAIN! No preconditions! This editor (Sony) wants this page locked and has used excuse after excuse to keep it that way. I'm requesting that this page be unlocked! There is no reason to have it locked. There is a whole group of editors here prepared to mediate and to arbitrate, on the content. If there is any edit warring this group of editors will step in. I have a wealth of information on this subject, and I am being prevented from editing because this editor dose not like it. Lift the lock and lets see what happens. --Domer48 11:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reiterating Mackensen's proposal on the ArbCom talk page. The reason it is locked originally was because you were edit warring with MarkThomas. A month after that it was unlocked, and you immediately began edit warring again. If it is unlocked once more, how do we know that you will not simply start edit warring again? I never asked for a lock, and neither do I want to prevent you from contributing your "wealth of information." What 'excuse' have I ever used to "keep it that way" (locked), except, in very recent days, that you were edit warring with MarkThomas and that that must stop? --sony-youthpléigh 11:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 100% agree to that - start with it locked then open it up when the necessary 'spirit' is evidient. --sony-youthpléigh 12:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Mackensen has made the following suggestion "Would editors here be prepared to accept the mediation of an uninvolved third party group composed of content editors to arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself?" Could editors sign that they agree or disagree ONLY
*Agree: --Domer48 11:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation 2

message: Mackensen has made the following suggestion "Would editors here be prepared to accept the mediation of an uninvolved third party group composed of content editors to arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself?" Could editors sign that they agree or disagree ONLY ONE WORD ANSWER:  AGREE or DISAGREE
*Agree: --Domer48 11:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I despair! --sony-youthpléigh 11:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yikes!!! MarkThomas 13:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation 3

message: Just wanted to get in a section not started by Domer. MarkThomas 14:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections are not multiplying

message: Done. — Scientizzle 21:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no! The deletion of surplus "d"s in this important context would be pure POV and very possibly "bad faith"!!! MarkThomas 14:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So many new editors are spawning just to edit this article I am losing track; perhaps "they" should all fill in a survey before joining so we can find out which previous editor they support! However, I was of course, this time, just joking Accident Of Birth - if you want to fix typos I have no objection! Have fun, whoever you are. MarkThomas 15:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll find you're wrong in this case, Mark. --sony-youthpléigh 15:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which bit was I wrong about Sony? MarkThomas 15:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "new editors ... spawning just to edit this article " - see. --sony-youthpléigh 16:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, my apologies to Accident of Birth, I was over-reacting - thanks for putting me straight Sony. MarkThomas 16:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, sadly the European bit of Wikipedia often gets "altered" overnight by the US end - you can have revenge by editing George W Bush, California and The Governator at 11.00am when they are all asleep! MarkThomas 15:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually I was just joking in this section. But if you're adding this comment because you think that this is a POV battle between me and the Irish, and you need to defend Domer48 against some perceived threat, I would request that you think again. I am very pro-Irish, but I am also very anti-POV and anti-bad-editor. Domer48 does not contribute well to Wikipedia. Many other pro-Irish-nationalist viewpoint editors do and I would have interesting debates with them about particular facts without the sort of flak and nonsense that emanates from Domer. So it isn't paranoia, it's acting in defense of the NPOV cyclopedia. MarkThomas 18:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request Edit