User talk:Domer48: Difference between revisions

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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:10, 28 July 2009

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

-- Trolls will be removed with Extreme prejudice!

Today is 5 October 2024

Useful links

Irish Manual of Style~ Policy ~ Assume good faith ~ Citing sources ~ Warning templates ~ Sources of articles ~ 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 ~

WP:Avoid peacock terms ~ Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms

Useful Noticeboard

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

My inappropriate post.

After posing this question on Bastuns talk page: "I saw your post on the Ireland Collaboration page. In particular, "Arbcom have specifically stated that Domer's prevarications can be ignored". I presume Arbcom are the top dogs here on wikipedia? I hate to be nosey, but I'm wondering why they would say that. Some kind of bust up?" I realise it was extremely ignorant of me to ask Bastun and not you. Whether you answer or not, I apologise for my unthinking action. Coll Mac (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Bastuns attempt at distraction “Arbcom have specifically stated that Domer's prevarications can be ignored.” As can be seen here it’s a completely spurious claim! Here is a list of ArbCom Members and they said nothing about me or the report that was thrown out by Admin's. Just another reason for fact checking. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Domer48. It's another wet day where I am, so I reckon that's three or four since I arrived at wikipedia. I'm genuinely sorry you think I wasn't much help at the discussion page (trying to push the ballot too early). I actually thought I was being constructive in my comments, but of course, I may be have been kidding myself on. I agreed with much of what you said, in particular the use of sources. When told that there was no policy making it mandatory, I decided not to pursue the argument. I did enjoy taking part in the debate but I think I'll stick to creating my little articles (nothing controversial there). All the best. Coll Mac (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

...savaged by a baby goldfish... you have to laugh. BigDunc 21:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of them trying to act all menacing? LOL. The talk page stalker appears to have no arguments to go too, thinks wiki is a social networking cite. Probably try turn that talk page into another chat room as well.--Domer48_'fenian' 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking at link if I am wrong I will leave wiki for good but I know who it is, so I will either be back in a sec to say goodbye or say I knew it, hang on. BigDunc 22:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shit I am psychic or else it was a very good description. BigDunc 22:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a coughing fit reading that, with my tea now coming out my nose. So intimidated by a ravenous goldfish, and on Opra’s watch list, be afraid, be very afraid. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting copy edits on Laudabiliter

Domer48, please don't revert copy edits. I spent half an hour wikifying an article only to find you have reverted each one of my edits without explanation.

Also, the template {{huh}} means that a sentence is incomprehensible. It's obviously sourced - and you are doing a great job on that article - but nouns, verbs and adjectives still need to arranged in a comprehendible order. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the {{Under construction}} template to that page for you and restored my copy edits for earlier. Night. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 ::: Shit I am psychic or else it was a very good description. <span style="border:1px solid green;padding:0px;">[[User_talk:BigDunc|<font style="color:orange;background:green;font-family:Verdana;">'''BigDunc'''</font>]]</span> 22:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 Just had a coughing fit reading that, with my tea now coming out my nose. So intimidated by a ravenous goldfish, and on Opra’s watch list, be afraid, be very afraid. --<font face="Celtic">[[User:Domer48|<span style="color:#009900"><strong>Domer48</strong></span>]]<sub>''[[User talk:Domer48|<span style="color:#006600">'fenian'</span>]]''</sub></font> 22:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
+== Reverting copy edits on Laudabiliter ==
+Domer48, please don't revert copy edits. I spent half an hour wikifying an article only to find you have reverted each one of my edits without explanation.
+Also, the template <nowiki>{{huh}}</nowiki> means that a sentence is incomprehensible. It's obviously sourced - and you are doing a great job on that article - but nouns, verbs and adjectives still need to arranged in a comprehendible order. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>([[User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid|coṁrá]])</small> 23:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
+:I've added the <nowiki>{{Under construction}}</nowiki> template to that page for you and restored my copy edits for earlier. Night. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid <small>([[User talk:Rannpháirtí anaithnid|coṁrá]])</small> 23:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)