User talk:BigDunc/Archive 4

Happy birthday?

Apparently, although it was 17 February allegedly.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but my first edit.BigDunc (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How long till the birthday of your first good edit then? ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot would would say haven't made one.BigDunc (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah you've made plenty! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Plenty more than me lately obviously..... :( One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mairéad Farrell

Just a friendly warning that this was a revert, which I asked you not do while the discussion is under way. Per Help:Reverting, this is only properly used as a way of dealing with vandalism or vandal-like edits. While in normal circumstances I would have no problem with your revert and you did use an informative edit summary, in these circumstances I feel reverting is unlikely to lead to the improvement of the article. Instead it makes an outcome involving blocks and/or protection of the article more likely. As I wish to avoid this kind of outcome, it would be better if you didn't revert again. Please contribute to the talk page discussion instead. Thanks for your understanding. --John (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What about that? The second revert by Gibnews, adding text which isn't referenced, despite there being a lengthy discussion about it on the talk page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to mess up your talk page, but I just noticed this which violates WP:NPA. Please consider this a final warning; your next post like this, or your next revert, will result in a block. I implore you not to make this necessary; I do always follow through on these promises though, so don't be in any doubt about the sincerity of this warning. Best wishes as always, --John (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me how I deserve a final warning for WP:NPA when for 1. I have not been given any previously and 2. I dont feel I made an attack seen as I dont see no warnings for an editor making racist comments by calling the Irish 'Paddy' and muslims 'Muhammad' and then implying that as 100% of the terrorists in Gibraltar have been Irish that all Irish are terrorists. Maybe I cant see the wood for the trees so can you enlighten me? BigDunc (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. My warning to you relates to this warning. You may wish to note that I also warned your opponent. At this stage we need to sort out, civilly and patiently, a compromise on the talk page. Please keep this whole conversation here as it makes it easier for others to follow. Thanks, --John (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong I get two warnings one for making a legitimate addition to the article by removing WP:OR and one for saying an editor made a racist remark. Is that correct? And my opponent gets one for blatently reverting and none for calling Irish people 'Paddy' and muslims 'Muhammad', is that correct? BigDunc (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That links to a page version, I can't see anything obvious so what's the diff? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I'm afraid that we've been here before; see also: WP:UP#OWN. I've restored the comment. If you feel that it is inappropriate, please take it up with an Admin. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on your comment whatsoever, I removed it as ONiH had blanked his page obviously not wanting to participate in this project. Seen as he has now inserted content back to the page I will not be removing anything from it. BigDunc (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I hope that he'll reconsider. I see from his contribution log that he started editing yesterday at 00:24 added some 120-odd edits throughout the day, and finished at 00:24 this morning. It's frankly a silly little 'dispute' which is quite capable of being sorted out without anyone losing their temper; the key is simply to WP:VERIFY everything that goes in the article and exclude anything that cannot be supported. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I said to John on his talk page, and when I do just that I get a warning, go figure.BigDunc (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, moot anyway. At least he's had the opportunity to read it. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Real Life Identity

Per this comment ([1]) please refer to: WP:Block#Protection. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Note "whether or not the information is accurate". --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple mistake there was a few here got mixed up so are you saying you are User:David Lauder because if you are not, how am I disclosing personal information about you when it is already on wikipedia in the link I provided. BigDunc (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not. I took the use of "Lauder" to be a broader reference than User:David Lauder. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Thank you for the information you provided me, I must admit it has taken me almost half an hour just to figure out how to respond to you!

I understand that my article has been flagged for deletion, but I have tried to be very factual in my description. Do you have suggestions? I would hope to avoid deletion by making the necessary changes. --InsightMD (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Max Lazer Band

Ah,BigDunc,so tis you that's requesting my article on The Max Lazer Band be deleted.You were not in LA at the time they played the clubs around Hollywood.They were brilliant and are deserving of an article in Wikipedia.Max himself looked like a cross between Mick Ronson and Michael DesBarres.Even DCGeist permitted me to place them in the Glam punk article.They have two songs on a comp CD ""The Godfathers of LA Punk". Some believe they influenced Guns and Roses.BigDunc, if I didn't feel they deserved an article,I wouldn't have wasted me time writing it.jeanne (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing personal but IMO they fail WP:MUSIC.-- BigDunc (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they have two songs on the above-mentioned LP surely qualifies them.There is also a photo of them on the website I listed.jeanne (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A compilation does not infere notability see here for what is needed. BigDunc (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc,I don't mean to be insistent but I just had a listen to them on the website CD Baby.Various Artists "The Godfathers of LA Punk".Please check them out yourself.You can hear for yourself how BRILLIANT they were and also read the good review.Max Lazer was considered to be one of the best LA punks bands back then(1978).jeanne (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

If you do not want my comments on your talk page why are you placing yours on mine? Surely the way forward is discussion yet you and others continue to delete large portions of the UDR site on an apparant whim without discussion?

GDD1000 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with wiki policy regarding unsourced or improperly sourced material. BigDunc (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The information you are continually deleting has been verified by a link to the Northern Ireland regional assembly. It is incontrovertible proof that a debate took place along party lines showing a difference of opinion regarding allegations of collusion. This item had been previously removed from the article but was restored by SilkTork as it was part of the balancing information showing that two schools of thought existed. Are you suggesting that parliamentary records are not a verifiable source or that the information has been in some way created or manipulated by me?

GDD1000 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See article talk page for my reply. BigDunc (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AWB

Hi. You already seem to be approved for this, so there was no need to apply. Let me know if there are any problems, however. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 15:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah by Nakon at 15:52 just 2 mins before you posted. BigDunc (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Strangeways

That'll teach me to proofread more carefully :) Oldelpaso (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No probs ;) BigDunc (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Carmen Perez

I sent it to AfD--it barely escapes an A7. Blueboy96 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why did CA United get Deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDCassidy (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted under criteria A7 of Speedy Deletion by Administrator NawlinWiki--BigDunc (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Caryn Massey

Hi there. Thanks for pursuing this article further. You tagged it as {{A7}}, not {{G3}}. Since it had assertions of notability, I simply turned it down. Had you used G3, I would have done a quick search and obviously agreed with you. In the future, be more careful with which CSD you tag articles: in my review of tagged pages, if the tag doesn't work and I can't see one immediately that will, I don't delete, and if I'm in a bit of a hurry, I may just bypass the article altogether. (If I have more time, I'll investigate it.) Correct/accurate tagging ensures that admins will readily see it and agree, deleting the article ASAP. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Elias Porter Edits

Thanks for your attention to the article. I would also appreciate any advice about improving it or preparing it for peer-review. I requested review from one other user (see edit history on Elias Porter. Tscud (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You can nominate the article for peer review here are steps, it is a simple task, I will also have a good look over it too and if I can give any suggestions to improve I will. BigDunc (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

BigDunc,I don't do it on purpose,it often happens that my signature winds up in the middle of a sentence.Mad! Also, could you please tell me how to put user boxes on my user page? Thanks.jeanne (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC) ..You are very kind to help me. I found these: user: UBX/medieval ; user: UBX/renaissance ; user:Lec CRP1/Userboxes/romanov; user:UBX/rolling stones. Thank you again,BigDunc.Cheersjeanne (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks BigDunc for the userboxes. I also noticed you edited my latest article Margaret de Bohun. I think I've finally accounted for all her children-all 18 of them!!Why did they have so many kids in those days?I understand the need for dynastic purposes, but to us editors who have to list them one-by-one....jeanne (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No electricity in them days nothing else to do :) If you give me the link where you found the medieval one ill see if i can add it for youBigDunc (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So we can thank Thomas Edison!!I found the medieval userbox.It's User:UBX/Medieval. Could you also add User:Daniel 10/Userboxes/PetCat. That cat on the userbox looks just like my cat Tony,only much more benign.Thank you so much for your assistance and your helpful edits. Oh, I need to ask you something regarding the Billy Giles article. Do you think an image of him is available?jeanne (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Care to comment

here Giano (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

5/7 DYK

On 7 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Martin Doherty, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 18:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FPC I'd Like Help With

I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind going to Portal:James Bond. I'd really appreciate any criticisms or support that you could provide for this Featured portal candidate. Thanks. Ultra! 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

help

..BigDunc,how does one go about putting photos on ones user page? Thanks

OK I've uploaded it but I can't get it onto my user page.It's img0006.jpg thanksjeanne (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

IT's actually Image:Img006.jpg thanks. I am stuck.jeanne (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got the image in my watchlist but cannot transfer it to my user page.Could you please help me?Thank you so much.The technical aspects of the computer still baffle me.jeanne (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded another it's Image: Img.061.jpg. Both can be found in my contributions.I'd really appreciate it if you paste bothonto my user page. thanks a million.jeanne (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You may not do as much rollbacking as some people but what you do is not misssed ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 13:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Fones

BigDunc, I've added citations and made a few changes.How is it now?jeanne (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bertie Ahern

Hi Dunc

I have removed the {{TotallyDisputed}} tag from Bertie Ahern, because there is no recent discussion on the talk page to indicate any substantial dispute, let alone that it is totally disputed. If you feel the article should be disputed, please explain why of the talk page before reinstating that tag: as it says at Template:Disputed, "To apply this template to an article, first add a new section "Disputed" to the talk page, describing the problems with the disputed statements." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi BHG i didn't put the tags on the article. They were on it but not displaying correctly so I just fixed them. BigDunc^Talk 08:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

re-creation

Thanks for spotting it. DGG (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

kept it on my watchlist had a feeling it would pop up again. BigDunc^Talk 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Curtisall

DGG has told him to stop; I just added a COI warning. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

I had no idea that he had vandalized a page. I was on the user creation log for 15 minutes so his contribs button was still red when I welcomed him. I will check their contribs before I welcome from now on. Cheers! Wiki Zorro 17:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem thanks for the reply. BigDunc^Talk 17:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tag-teaming on User talk:David Lauder

Ok, what you were doing there was disruptive in the extreme. Tag-teaming with Domer to edit-war with Bonkers over a sock tag? Please don't do that again or you'll be just as likely to get blocked for disruption and edit-warring - Alison ^❤ 22:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Would that be one of them whopping 22 min blocks? Where the blocker apologies to the blockee im sure I could live with that, and and doesn't assume good faith on another editors behalf? BigDunc^Talk 08:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi BigDunc,

Just wanted to state away from the RFA, that I was sincere in my answer to you; I genuinely hadn't realised this was a hotly contested issue. For what it's worth, I even said in my comment ([2]) that, quote "I'm surprised this debate is happening". --Jza84 |  Talk  23:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment-Heads Up

Can I make you aware that I have posted on the talk page for the Ulster Defence Regiment that I have made some sweeping changes to the entire article at my work page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GDD1000/UDR. I would appreciate your looking in, as you have been involved in the dialogue on this article. My intention has been to clean up the article, remove repetition and add new information. I believe there may be some syntax errors in the references and I would appreciate help or advice on that. Similarly I am willing to discuss anything you believe is contentious. I am repeating this request on Domer48's talk page.GDD1000 (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The Troubles

I'm sorry if this post intrudes.

Rather than enter into an edit war over the Nuzhound item on The Troubles article can I just let you know what my objection is to its use? On the Ulster Defence Regiment page you say the source is discredited and cannot be used. I have no problems supporting its inclusion on the Troubles article but I would then be pressing for its use on the UDR article too. Does that sound logical to you? GDD1000 (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The source being used on the UDR page is discredited for various reasons. Firstly it is an opinion piece littered with flowery language written by an Orangeman, but that is not the main basis of the reason for its unreliability. The article lifts information from the talktalk website which is unreliable and has been shown to be factually incorrect by the official Hansard records, and is also contradicted by other sources. When an opinion piece written by someone of questionable neutrality contains such basic factual errors it should be avoided. The comparison with the other article is therefore frivolous, given the other article is reporting accurately on an official British government report on widespread collusion between the UDR and unionist paramilitaries. BigDunc^Talk 13:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned it shouldn't matter if it's written by an Orangeman or the Pope. I don't believe you have used any comparisons with Hansard either to verify what you say. However I now believe what you're telling me is that Nuzhound is an acceptable source, just some articles which you disagree with are not?GDD1000 (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That discussion contains clear evidence (including comparisons with Hansard) to prove my point, as you are fully aware as you took part in the discussion until you were proved wrong. Please try and keep up, I do not wish to have the same discussion eighteen times. BigDunc^Talk 18:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of proving anyone wrong. It's a matter of concensus. Once I found myself agreeing with you I stopped objecting. It does seem necessary to ram some issues home with you because you appear to have very deep seated opinions. I don't have any issues with that because we're all entitled to our views. I just feel that you need to take the opinions of other into consideration at times and treat others as you wish to be treated. A little respect goes a long way.GDD1000 (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism report

BigDunc, there is an Anonymous User whose real User Name is PhDHistorian, he's vandalising my talk and User page. Could you please advise me it's become a nightmare to see my user page full of insults thanksjeanne (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I see RockPocket has had a look. BigDunc^Talk 11:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

.. Yes, he's put my pages under protection. Thank you so much for helping me out. The vandals were, in fact, trolls.how annoying they are. can really stir up trouble.jeanne (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Sands

Please no not revert edits without even looking at the talk page. There is a discussion ongoing. The balance of evidence suggeststs that he was indeed a British Citizen.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The balance of evidence provided by biased editors is wrong he was not a British citizen. BigDunc^Talk 12:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an assertion, not an argument. He was born in the UK, ergo he was a British citizen.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have responded on the talk page and have no more to say regarding the lamest edit war I have seen. IMO it was just trolling that brought this non issue back up. BigDunc^Talk 17:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have provided assertions, but no arguments.Traditional unionist (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Headlines

Noted. Thanks for your advice. I know I've still a lot to learn here.jeanne (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wolf Hunter

I don't see how any one has a right to delete some ones work from here. Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia for people to gain knowledge about things in life, pop culture and things from around the world. The Wolf Hunter film it's self is a film that has lots of fans and supporters as does the character. I think just because its not as well known as Freddy or Jason does not mean it should not be on here. I have already seen that some one else has edited the article as well. I think that if this does go off its a shame and what kind of Encyclopedia for the people rob people from learning about films and characters from a independent film.

--bloodline video 06:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a guidline for articles called notability have a read of it. It is not to late to save the article if you can provide sources for it which are reliable sources which are verifiable hope this helps you. BigDunc^Talk 07:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series

I suggest that you can delete almost futher unneccesary discussions, because it is 110 KB long and they end up having the dumbest arguments about image deletion. I can't stand scrolling all the way down, which is annoying and exhausting. 70.45.60.10 (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well as you say dont complain. BigDunc^Talk 12:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

All I can say, I just hope they realize that the GTA gang images are under GTA's domain. You might need to notify User:Black Kite and User:Eganio. I, for one, can't break up their arguments without one of the admins' help. 70.45.60.10 (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean please? BigDunc^Talk 12:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a good look at this, this, this and lastly, this. I must warn you, that they are extremely large and must be deleted due to their unneccesary arguments. I did my best to break them up, but never worked, to no avail. 70.45.60.10 (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

i have put a Collapsible Box around the biggest part of it how is that? BigDunc^Talk 13:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

1798 Rebellion

I don't know if this is the right place to put this question - but I don't know what was controversial about what I wrote on the 1798 rebellion page. Thats what happened - isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by McLintock 71 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:WEASEL for words to be avoided and how to write sentences might help, happy editing. BigDunc^Talk 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

BanditoLoco (talk · contribs)

Thanks for the heads up and great observation. Interesting comment posted by Bandit on User talk:BanditoLoco. Care to take this sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigation further? I think that statement followed by initial edit vandalizing your page constitute confirmation of the sock relationship. I'm sure you have insight as to who the "many profiles" are. Toddst1 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I will put a report on WP:SSP but i'm not aware off hand of the other accounts maybe Cyclonemin is as the second edit they made was to that page. BigDunc^Talk 19:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi BigDunc, thanks for your reversion of the vandalism. I don't recall having any contact with either of the two accounts you've given me details of so I suspect that there is another yet unknown sockpuppet which we have had contact with? Feel free to submit a report to WP:SSP and if they can't pick it up we can try WP:RFCU. Thanks! Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 20:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the three of us are collaborating with some sinister plan. I know User:WLU, but I'm pretty sure you and I have not crossed paths before. Did you forget to invite me to the Secret Evil Plan meetings? I feel left out. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to send out the memo that day ;) I have filed a sock report here I came across WLU when he reverted UDACommander on my page. Maybe you might have more suspects to add to the list. BigDunc^Talk 21:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, those are the only ones I've noticed. At least now I know how we got to be in the same cabal; I guess we agreed that maybe a blatant vandal shouldn't be unblocked, even if he did make a dozen requests. How sinister of us. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We are very bad, you just cant win sometimes :) BigDunc^Talk 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Northern Irish

How is it that a person born in Northern Ireland is "not Northern Irish"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No offence but you obviously know nothing of Irish politics, they are NOT Northern Irish. BigDunc^Talk 08:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I most certainly do. Perhaps you don't realise it's not a political category. It's a birthplace category. Anyway, if you object so much to it on "political" grounds, then would not the sensible thing to do be to place the person in Category:Irish escapees instead of the redundant Category:Escapees? POV may be clouding your thinking, of course. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not a birthplace category. Category:People from Belfast is a birthplace category, that category is not a birthplace category. Please stop adding contentious categories to biographical articles, especially ones about living people. Domer48 (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Who says it's not? I created it; supposedly I could define it as a birthplace/escapee one. So, what about my other points? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware you had any other points, I do not see any that have any merit and are in need of addressing. I repeat, please stop adding contentious categories to biograhpical articles, especially ones about living people. The sensible thing to do would be to stop adding or creating offensive categories in the first place, such as claimimg Angelo Fusco is British based on your own conjecture. Domer48 (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me restate the point I made above, since you were unaware of it. If you disagree with this category, would not the sensible thing to do be to place the person in another category, (like Category:Irish escapees, e.g.) instead of the redundant Category:Escapees? As for Angelo Fusco, you seemed to miss the point that the category in question identified the nationality of the granter of the pardon, not the nationality of the recipient. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this discussion is coming from, but people born in Northern Ireland can be considered British, Irish, Northern Irish, even Ulstermen or Ulsterwomen. As the area is contested it's usually polite to refer to the person in the manner to which they'd wish to be referred.Starviking (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's good advice, which is why I would suggest changing the category to the appropriate one, rather than simply reverting a change that may not be accurate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been a arther unfortunate tendency for some ditors to refuse to engage in the debate about this. I am yet to see a proper argument that Northern irish doesn't exist. There has been emphirical evidence produced many times that it does.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are imposing a tag of Northern Irish on people that do not class themselves as such. BigDunc^Talk 12:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sable Starr

Hello, BigDunc, thanks for relisting my latest srticle on Maud de Braose. My article that you tagged yesterday was deleted as I slept last night by an American editor.(I am on CET).I had found more sources on Sable but it was already deleted. This is not an ego thing, I really believe she desrves her own article. Seeing as Wikipedia has a groupies cat, why shouldn't it include one of the most notable groupies of the 1970's along with Bebe Buell and Pamela Des Barres. I grew up in that time and place, I know how famous Sable was, far more so than Connie Hamzy who has her own article. The groupies cat is sparse because we aren't allowed to write articles about the real groupies. What irriates me is how so many editors, especially those in America, have a regional bias-if they have never heard of someone, well they cannot be important, so must be deleted ASAP. As I said, BigDunc, this isn't an ego trip, I don't care who submits the article, I just felt that Sable Starr merited an article and that other editor deleted my article too quickly.Thanks.Sorry for bothering you but I sort of regard you as my mentor here at Wikipedia.jeanne (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

With an article like that you have to be very careful of violating WP:BLP. Have a good read of that, sources have to be strictly adhered to on it. The refs you had were to groupies.com and cant recall the other IMO hardly the most reliable of sources wouldn't you agree. Also this seems to be a source of the article also not a relaible source. BigDunc^Talk 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Also see this page it gives you a lot of help in creating articles. BigDunc^Talk 15:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose writing about a groupie could be rather dodgy, seeing as she was 15 years old in 1973 and most of the people I mentioned are alive. If I could just get my hands on a proper book about her which could be sourced with dates, names, page numbers, references etc I'd have another go. But until then, I guess my safest bet is to stick with my standard medieval heiresses. They're easier to source and cannot complain about libel!!!Thanks again, BigDunc.Cheers.15:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

Frances Seymour, Duchess of Somerset (1599-1674)

Just curious how do we combine the Source section and the ref section because we only need one I believe. Daytrivia (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Did a slight re adjust how is that? BigDunc^Talk 11:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks looks better. Daytrivia (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Groupies articles.

I've been busy editing and removing unsourced, lurid details about Lori Maddox, Connie Hamzy and Angela Bowie. The latter had a few lines that were highly questionable and even contained profanity. I think they look ok now, but if you want to have a look at them go ahead and see if they pass muster.jeanne (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Flag for Northern Ireland?

I've noticed you removing the Northern Ireland from several articles, with the note that this is not the flag for Northern Ireland.

What would you suggest is used instead, as the flag Wikipedia has is the normally accepted flag.

Or are you suggesting that NI has no flag that can be used - as I assume that any other flag (the Union flag, or the Republic's) would be too contentious?

PhantomSteve (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Union flag is the official flag of NI the Ulster Banner was the Flag of the Government of Northern Ireland between 1953 and 1972. And has limited use today in some sports. BigDunc^Talk 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Limited, and very much unoffical. About as official as the flag of Ulster.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you could call it 'limited'. About two-thirds of the Northern Irish population would recognise it as their flag in some manner or other. It was also the official flag of the Northern Ireland government in the past, which is more than can be said for the flag of Ulster. Starviking (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"...in the past..." You said it.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're using selective quotes to put words into people's mouths there's hardly any point continuing this discussion. Starviking (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of the Northern Ireland conflict

My take on that ban was that it referred to the latest "Northern Ireland conflict", usually known as the Troubles (1969-98). Your definition seems to be a little more elastic. Would you care to elaborate?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean, not sure what you are referring to. BigDunc^Talk 12:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This edit summary [3]

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please reinstate article for Chaindriven

For the following reasons, please do not delete this new article about Chaindriven, as it contains the following notable content which is both important and significant: 1. Chaindriven just won a contest at KLOS, the largest classic rock station in Los Angeles. This contest received more than 300 entries. 2. The Chaindriven article includes a citation to verify that Chaindriven won this contest. 3. This contest was held by the Mark & Brian show, one of the most popular morning radio shows in Los Angeles.

4. The Chaindriven article is as notable as any of the other articles that were created under the

category. Most of those articles do not contain any citations, or any "important and significant" information.

JackBaker5 (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of this and this. BigDunc^Talk 19:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Steve McKeown

You have no reason for the deletion of the above Profile and it is notable if an administrator were to research the proposed dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maccer123 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

RMS?

Hi. You made this change - I'm wondering how you know that IP belongs to that sock? Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ping. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to know what 2+2 is next? BigDunc^Talk 11:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No need for the sarcasm. That IP - which belongs to a large ISP - isn't listed on that page (one I was unaware of till now), and my question was prompted because the IP's edit seemed to be good faith. That's all, curiousity satisfied. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger: the "favourite hate" name poll

You participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I've removed it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP Computing

Greetings. You are receiving this note as you are a member of this WikiProject. Currently there is not much of activity in the project and I am hoping to revive the project with your help. I have made a few changes to the project page Diff. You are welcome to make suggestions of improvement / changes in the design. I have also make a proposal to AutoTagg articles with {{WikiProject Computing}} for the descendant wikiprojects articles also. Please express your opinion here -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Billy Giles

Thanks for fixing my references on the Billy Giles page. If there's an image of Giles available from Public Domain, do you think I could/should upload it to the article? Also, another question; excuse my ignorance but where does one locate the wee wriggly braces on a Vista Windows? I am unable to paste User Boxes on My User Page for that reason. Thanks.jeanne (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is on the keyboard beside the letter P, on the keyboard holding the shift key and pressing the [ button. And if you have an image that can be used bearing in mind copyright and such go ahead. BigDunc^Talk 12:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting up the Wikibreak template. If I can access a computer I can still edit Wikipedia, right?09:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

You sure can just log in and away you go. BigDunc^Talk 09:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that providing I dont get blocked. I'm currently having a bit of a dispute with some other editors. If you could do me one enormous favour, Ill be eternally grateful. Could you please hoist a French ancestry User Box to my User page (with French Tricolour). I'd like it there out of memory to my mother whose nan was French. Thanks, BigDunc.Cheers.12:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

Thanks

No idea why that user felt the need to vandalise me. I don't see any history. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. BigDunc^Talk 16:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ray Riendeau

Thanks for allowing the page to stay on. I'm glad Ray can finally get a little more recognition. Cheers! BBFootBallr54 (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Needs a little bit of a re-write IMO. BigDunc^Talk 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It was from his website, I'll try to re-write I can and what not, to make it a little more cleaner. BBFootBallr54 (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know what I should do concerning the page. I will get onto it later and thanks again. Cheers. BBFootBallr54 (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No bother any questions let me know and I will give you all the help I can good luck and happy editing. BigDunc^Talk 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Can you suport this?

Could you suport the claim in this edit summary [4]? It is still taught in UK schools that Ireland is the second largest island in the British Isles and something being offensive (as per images of Mohammed) doesn't exclude it from Wikipedia. So can you find a reliable source stating that the term is incorrect? --BozMo talk 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

See The Dynamics of Conflict in Northern Ireland: Power, Conflict and emancipation. Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd. Cambridge University Press. 1996 it states Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles';... or better still read the footnotes on the BI article it says a lot about this including the government of Irelands stance. BigDunc^Talk 21:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I am not particularly interested but there has been such a fuss to include offensive names pictures etc in other contexts here on WP leaving something out as offensive seems not very Wikipedian, if it is accurate. A better argument might be to describe it as archaic which at least has one supporting reference too, and fits better with governments seeking to avoid it. --BozMo talk 22:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I take your point, for myself I could never be offended by a word or term, and in retrospect was not the best edit summary to use. BigDunc^Talk 22:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

One source isn't particularly revealing on a matter like this. Also, wikipedia is not censored.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree I have never supported censorship anywhere on wiki or in my country can you say the same TU, because your party cant. BigDunc^Talk 22:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That is highly irrelevant, and very offensive. Please remain within the bounds of WP:CIVILTraditional unionist (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What is offensive about stating a fact that the party you admit to being a member/supporter of actively encouraged censorship of another political party. BigDunc^Talk 22:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Were is the relevance to the topic at hand? Absence of relevance suggests an ad hominem attack, which would be a breach of WP:CIVIL. Please remain on topic.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who came here and started bleating on about censorship and blindly reverted an edit I made citing WP:CENSOR so what is the topic at hand? BigDunc^Talk 22:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your revert was based on the idea that the content was "offensive". Wikipedia is not censored.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Then what was this or is it only not censored when it suits you. BigDunc^Talk 22:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That was a breach of WP:UNDUE, there was no suggestion of censorship.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Paddy Quinn entry - Hunger Strike documentary reference

Hi Re your deletion of my reference to the BBC Timewatch documentary 'Hunger Strike: A Hidden History" on the entry about Paddy Quinn. I have had silmilar discussions before with Wikipedia editors and usually they end up agreeing. My point being that when a film/documentary is an original source of information about the subject it is not only relevent to refer to it but actually factually important . In the case of the referenced film Paddy Quinn and his mother, Mrs Quinn, both talk in depth about their experience of the hunger strike , alongside other key hunger strikers. It is as far as I can ascertain the only time that they have spoken on the record and is therefore as crucial as any document from the period. The commercial reference merely refers to the production company and the broadcaster - rather necessary for anyone who wishes to follow up the reference. I just checked the Wikipedia guidlines for tv/vidoes eg {{cite AV media}}: Empty citation (help) Thanks. ps did you also remove my contibutions to the main 1981 Hunger Strikes pages? and the Father Faul page ? Seabream (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Seabream

Wikiquette Alert notification

Hi there. This is to notify you that there is a Wikiquette alert involving you here. You may wish to comment.

I have looked at the issues that were raised, and the only thing I would caution you is that this edit was probably quite ill-advised. As you know well, tensions tend to run very high on this issue, and calling someone out on their political allegiances seems to me to be bound to start a fight. As always, comment on the edits rather than the editor, and avoid characterizations such as that one.

I'm not crazy about how either you or TU comported yourself in the aftermath, but of course, I realize that these issues tend to get people very upset, and it's been that way for quite some time. I would just exhort you to try and remain calm, and avoid comments that could provoke an unnecessary fight. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding incivil edit summaries

Hello again BigDunc. I am very concerned about this edit summary, which shows that you are continuing to attack other editors immediately after you were warned about civility. Sennen Goroshi was clearly acting in good faith and not trolling. Whether his warning was excessive or not is another matter, but referring to him as a troll is unacceptable. Please do better to assume good faith and maintain civility in the future. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

With edits like this lets call rape surprise sex would you blame me calling an editor a troll. Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia I feel this is what this editor is doing. They followed me to the Ireland article and reverted an edit I made, an article that they have not edited. Is that not the actions of a troll? Also regarding the sock who I called an idiot after edits like this and this Idiot is a fir analysis of what this editor did and then along come Sennan to issue a warning come on please. BigDunc^Talk 18:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That edit was from almost a year ago. You are free to have your own opinions of different editors, but you should keep them to yourself and focus instead on their edits. In this case I agree with Jaysweet; the warning you received was intended in good faith and you should definitely consider toning down your edit summaries in the interest of cooperation with others. --John (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

OK then, how about a diff from today when he describes one of the dead on Bloody Sunday as a little terrorist, some people might call that trolling as it certainly isn't helpful. There's plenty more where that came from too. BigDunc^Talk 18:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)

I mentioned earlier that I thought your "idiot" comment was understandable given that you were (in that case) being trolled by a sockpuppet of a banned user. However, even though I wouldn't have warned you about it, Sennen was clearly acting in good faith when he/she issued the warning, so it is inappropriate to label him/her as a "troll".

The "little terrorist" comment is very problematic, but I still don't think this is "trolling" per se. And in any case, even if we assume Sennen is trolling, calling a troll a troll is rarely helpful. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok Jaysweet I'll take on board what you have said. BigDunc^Talk 18:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I saw that. I am not standing up for edits like these, I'm just saying that calling someone a troll or an idiot isn't a helpful way to resolve the situation. It makes him (and others) less likely to take your opinion seriously, not more. The better way is always to focus on the behavior that you find problematic and ask them to desist, raise the matter with others, or just ignore it. I tend to use all three of these methods, and I recommend them to you. --John (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So I look forward to you telling this editor to desist then John. BigDunc^Talk 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, now that you've asked me to, I will have a polite word. Let's see if that does the trick, it often does. If not we can either take it further or decide to ignore it. --John (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am flattered that you took so much interest in me and my edits to dig up something I said over a year ago. That comment was a poor attempt at humour, nothing more, nothing less - if I was trolling wikipedia, surely there would be something a little more recent. My comments on your talk page, were what I considered to be a better alternative to making an ANI report, which I was more than within my rights to do, either that or slap an ugly civility and/or 3RR template on your talk page. Regarding the terrorist comment, that is my personal opinion, and despite how hard we try, it is hard to avoid personal opinions leaking out, especially when on talk pages - someone is found with nailbombs in their pocket, listed as a former terrorist in an IRA book, then I am sorry if you take offence, but I consider them to be a terrorist - would you prefer I called him a freedom fighter? a martyr? Either way, I am more than happy to consider this whole inter-drama over, neither of us went too far, lets get on with editing wikipedia, rather than wallowing in petty little arguments. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in what you do on wiki at all, and regard the warning, I call a block evading sock who personally attacks 2 editors and vandalises articles an idiot you feel warrents a warning come on please. And regarding 3RR warning this was an IP evading a block on a previous IP which was exempt but changed recently without my knowledge from 3RR see here. Also if you think by calling someone a terrorist is going to offened me you are sadly mistaken, I could not give a damn what you call people it is you who are making the judgements on people who cant answer back not me. BigDunc^Talk 19:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So are we all finished now and friends now? Let's have a big internet group hug and get on with editing, life is too short for wasting time on this, when there are lots of article that could benefit from our assistance. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. BigDunc^Talk 20:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism

Hey Dunc. While I fully agree with the sentiments behind the notice you have been placing at the top of a few pages (e.g. [5]), I'm not aware that there is a clear policy ruling on the matter. The links you provide are to a guideline and a failed proposal, now inactive because a clear policy could not be agreed on. This may be slightly pedantic, but in this wiki-world, the different between a active policy, a guideline and a proposal is not insignificant. It might be worth making the text more clear lest someone see it is a reason to remove it entirely. Rockpocket 00:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok Rock thanks for the advice. BigDunc^Talk 11:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the current version works. The MoS guideline is pretty clear, and should be sufficient to keep the word out of articles unless sourced and attributed. Rockpocket 16:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image tag

[6] I think you should probably tell him which image was tagged. Risker (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks just did. BigDunc^Talk 20:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the recent reversion of a vandalistic edit to my talk page :) —CycloneNimrod^Talk? 19:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No probs they just did mine too lol. BigDunc^Talk 19:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandals, eh ;) —CycloneNimrod^Talk? 19:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and youre Welcome about reverting that vandalism on youre talk page. More than happy to help. :DII MusLiM HyBRiD II (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of the MOS

I see you reverted my changes to 1990 Strangeways Prison riot. Straight off, let me say that I'm not going to edit war over it. It seems that the MOS no longer requires dates to be wikilinked (maybe you know that - first I heard of it was this week), but it is now optional. Having said that, at least one article (Greater Manchester) has had the wikilinking on dates stripped out by hand during FAC. That is obviously barmy, so I was giving AWB a run-out on a few articles. If it's going to be controversial, AWB is the wrong tool to use. Just so I know, did you revert based on the old MOS, or you know about the new MOS and prefer the old way, or something else? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Optional doesn't mean deprecated, so I'm not seeing any pressing need for it to be done. BigDunc^Talk 23:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I still think it should be fixed by the devs. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. That guy is a bloody pest! Another know-it-all who adds unsourced opinions to articles and calls them facts, and then has the temerity to throw a fit when he's reverted. Shocking! Anyway, thank you! Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. BigDunc^Talk 14:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

respect

You have mine RE. the 9/11 talk page. And yes, maybe I was being intentionally antagonistic (not that I would ever admit to trolling) on our previous issue. thanks. Sennen goroshi (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm Back

Just reading some of the discussions while I was away. New defence on 3RR "They made me do it." --Domer48_'fenian' 10:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Curious Comment

i am real so do not delete my name and my bio again so if you do you will be blocked

michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldspongebob101 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I can only presume that you are talking about the deletion of Michael Booth. Please have a read of this and be sure to include relaible sources for your article, also see WP:SPEEDY it gives the criteria why articles are deleted. If I am talking about the right article it was deleted because An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. thanks and happy editing. BigDunc^Talk 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

i have been on wikipedia since last month and please feel free to write me

michael booth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldspongebob101 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

GOLI

A bit academic now, but the Orange uses Londonderry and not Derry for it's organisation, so it's the same situation as Derry GAA. You self reverted anyway.Traditional unionist (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah spotted that with a google search thanks. BigDunc^Talk 10:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

editing war

re: your message Thanks for the info. This wikipedia business is more complicated than I anticipated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by William.mu (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Especially regarding the 3 revert rule. BigDunc^Talk 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Aart de geus

If a person with credentials including the IEEE Robert Noyce medal, does not deserve an encyclopedia entry who does? See the official IEEE page profile [1] when he was awarded the 2007 IEEE Robert N. Noyce Medal. Also dont forget that, the first logic synthesis program was also written by him. I don't know what you mean, by not notable. Ask anyone in the semiconductor industry! I hope Robert Noyce medal[2] is notable (http://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/about/awards/sums/noycesum.html). If not, then I have nothing to say.

[1]thttp://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/about/awards/bios/2007_Bios/2007Noyce-DeGeus.html [2]http://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/about/awards/sums/noycesum.html Galoiserdos (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

THE BURNING OF THE IRISH FLAG

ON FRIDAY THE 11th OF JULY TOMMY GORMAN,THE HALF BAKED RTE NORTHERN IRELAND CORRESPONDANT DID A SEGMENT ON THE EVE OF THE 12th HE TALKED TO A COUPLE OF PEOPLE AND SHOWED FOOTAGE OF AT LEAST TWO MASSIVE BONFIRES WITH IRISH FLAGS ON TOP..ONE BONFIRE HAD A CAMPAIGN POSTER OF THE PRESENT MINISTER FOR EDUCATION IN THE NORTH NAILED JUST UNDER THE IRISH FLAG..ALTHOUGH THIS ANUAL HIGHLY SECTARIAN EVENT IS NOTHING MORE THAN SELF GLORIFACATION OF A FOUR HUNDRED YEAR OLD BATTLE VICTORY,THE EVENT IS SUCCESSFUL IN ONE WAY..IT LETS THE WORLD SEE THE INHERINT DISTRUST THE CATHOLIC PEOPLE HAVE IN LAW AND ORDER IN ULSTER..THE POLICE STAND CLOSE BY AND ALLOW THIS MILIGNANT BEHAVIOUR TO CARRY ON,AND ANYBODY WITH A HAIR OF SENSE UP AND DOWN THIS ISLAND WILL AGREE THAT IF A DRINK FULED MOB OF CATHOLICS STACKED PALLETS AS HIGH AS THEY DID WITH A UNION JACK ATOP THE POLICE WOULD MOVE IN AND BREAK IT UP..THAT IS A FACT..THE FOLLOWING MONDAY,THE IRISH INDEPENDANT RAN A STORY ABOUT THE FESTIVE DAY THAT WAS HAD BY ALL ON THE 12th OF JULY..THEY ALSO MENTIONED THAT BORD FÁILTE AND THE IRISH TOURISIM BORD WOULD BE SUPPORTING THIS EVENT AS A TOURISIM FEATURE..IS BURNING THE FLAG OF IRELAND A SPECTICLE FOR TOURISTS? AND IF CELABRATING A FOUR HUNDRED YEAR OLD VICTORY EVERY YEAR IS ACCEPTABLE IN THIS WAY I FAIL TO SEE THE DIFFERANCE BETWEEN WILLIAM OF ORANGE,ADOLF HITLER,SADAME HUSSAIN OR RADOVAN KARADZIC...ONLY LONG TERM MISERY CAME FROM THE 12th OF JULY,FOUR HUNDRED YEARS AGO AND PRESENT DAY..Breen32 (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Aye I seen the news coverage here not a pretty sight. BigDunc^Talk 14:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ive sent a couple of unavoidable questions to the two tourist bodys..it beggers belief to think that this sort of houiliginism would attract holiday makers..with st patricks day gone quiet the last two years and soreing fule costs..bord fáilte are realy dregging the furrows of simple minded bigots to come to mother ireland for that nonsense,that been said-reading through some of the edits on wiki of late,you could'nt fire a rock in the air without hitting a bigot...Breen32 (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know Breen be careful with civility you can be blocked fairly quick. BigDunc^Talk 15:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite, and you'd do well to heed your own advice too, BigDunc, given your behaviour of the last few days - Alison ^❤ 17:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

ah yes careful..but if a spade is a spade..then a fact is a fact..Breen32 (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My mistake!

Sorry about the warning that Twinkle put here. I was marking the page Snoopfox for deletion, and didn't realize you originally set the page to refer to a user's page. The editor removed those tags and recreated the article back in main space, and I re-added the tag via Twinkle, which then saw YOU as the original editor. Sorry about the mix up! :)

No worries, you are not the only one who didn't see it (And in all honesty, neither would i). However, did you also notice the user is actually called "Snoopfoxculture"? Looks like he has been trying to circumvent this by creating a talk page at user_talk:Snoopfox. Either way i reported him now. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye my apologies too :) BigDunc^Talk 19:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No need, no need! No harm was done, it was not intentional, and there was no real way this could have been known. In short, was there a mistake in the first place? ;) Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Helpful Comments

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FANATIC The Thunderer (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're really interested in helping then may I suggest you also look at this http://ecohcoy.tripod.com/ it's a self published website but it's a good insight and, more to the point, the chap who runs it is willing (as far as I can ascertain) to allow us to use photographs from his pages. The UDR article is very short on pictures and graphics and I'm not sure about how to address the copyright issues when it comes to someone else's pictures. You probably have a lot more experience in that direction?The Thunderer (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way: you're in for one hell of an eye opener if you seriously intend to read both of those books.The Thunderer (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I noted your comments about some of the brigadiers on the UDR site being so unimportant that they don't have their own Wikipedia entry. I think you've maybe misinterpreted something along the line here. Not having a Wikipedia entry is no indication of importance and I don't think you should use it as a yardstick. I can name you (but I won't) one of the most famous UK Generals of modern times, who comes from the Irish Republic and commanded the SAS in Northern Ireland as well as commanding the entire SAS Regiment in later life - he doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. Does that make him unimportant? You do see what I'm driving at don't you?The Thunderer (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What makes a person notable is the guidelines set out on wiki. If they meet the criteria then they stay. But I am in all honesty a fan of Deletionism IMO there are way to many non notable articles on wiki BigDunc^Talk 14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you were to go on any site which lists British Army officers and pop some of those names in you'd get a CV to blow your mind. Most of those UDR Brigadiers were junior officers in WW2 and were decorated in some way or another. There was also a policy in place to try and use Catholic, Southern Irish officers (of which there were, and are, plenty). Another ploy I was reading about last night was to use officers who had already been nominated for promotion so that it looked like two years on attachment to the UDR was an automatic guarantee of upward mobility. If it's banal, then delete it, I agree but sometimes the purveyor of the information is simply a banal writer - I'm not that good myself - and all it needs is a tidying up, as long as you know the subject matter and truthfully, there's a lot of that needing done on the UDR page because it's become "bitsy". It needs to flow better. I admit some of that is my fault but I would respectfully submit that the piece I added last night on intimidation is balanced, well referenced and reasonably well written. Would you disagree? Also, the list of bases needs to be enclosed in a box grid to reduce its size on the page and more info included on the notable bases. Do you know how to do that?The Thunderer (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out why you wish to limit the UDR to one soldier who wasn't sectarian? The item you are trying to edit gives it as "one example" and surely that is enough for even the most pedantic? What your edit appears to be trying to say is that the UDR was sectarian, apart from that one soldier? That isn't for us editors to decide. We must edit in accurate and verifiable information. Having read both regimental histories I know there are many more incidents where UDR soldiers arrested or otherwise acted against Loyalist terrorists (discovering weapons, bomb making material etc), they even killed a small number of them. In addition you have to consider the Catholic only sections in 3 UDR. Were they sectarian too? Respectfully I suggest to you; read the books you have bought and try to understand what you're editing. I'm certainly not suggesting you pussyfoot around any subjects but try to stay neutral. The item in question is very notable, and ironic too. It has a place on the page in my humble opinion.The Thunderer (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to have a look at this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Open_warfare I haven't referenced it yet, preferring to wait and see if you wish to tidy up the writing style or make the item more interesting? As we're presumably reading from the same books I'm sure I can find references to anything you add.The Thunderer (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Do me a favour please. Can you outline anything I've written which you think may be POV pushing, Original Research or Synthesized in such a way which makes it look like either of the former? I've read through my recent additions and can possibly identify one or two adjectives which may be the problem. If I knew exactly what you were driving at perhaps I could re-edit and remove the objectionable material.The Thunderer (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

any chance you could start adding info at the UDR page instaed of trying to delete things all the time? I thought you said you were going to work with me and HELP?The Thunderer (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of designated terrorist organizations

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of designated terrorist organizations, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of designated terrorist organizations. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Email

Hello Dunc. I'm very sorry I have not responded to your concerns, I have been drastically scaling back my wiki-activities, partly because my enthusiasm is at an all-time low as a consequence of recent developments and partly because I am extremely busy at work.

I'm not really sure there is much I can do to help you at this time. The mutual animosity between you and the other individual is obvious and you appear to be pretty adept at winding each other up, whether that is the intention or not. I think the best course of action is simply to ignore the inferences about sockpuppetry. Its clear to everyone else that isn't the case, so I wouldn't let it get to you.

Sure, its incivil and unhelpful and not conducive to a collaborative working environment. What is becoming patently clear to me is that certain editors are excused from respecting "civility" as a concept. Therefore, If some editors are free to be as incivil, insulting, rude or aggressive as they please, then it is entirely unfair to censure others for exactly the same thing. Eventually the community will realize that everyone needs to be held to the same standard, or no-one does and the project turns into a flame-fest. Until then I suggest you be nice to others and simply ignore when they are rude to you. Thats the principle I am working under (in the rare times I can be bothered to edit these days). Rockpocket 18:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your reply RP and I will take on board what you said, as I tried to do when you last gave me a bit of advice, and IMO I think I have followed your words and have not joined in when I normally would have. Hope to see you back soon Rock take it handy and dont let the fuckers grind you down. BigDunc^Talk 22:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome template bug (Twinkle bug TW-B-193)

I have fixed it; the error was in the template, which contained the signature of a user who edited it yesterday. I have edited User talk:Muinchille1‎ so it now shows your signature and the correct time. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats great thanks. BigDunc^Talk 10:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

Dunc, I'm not seeing why you're removing that paragraph from the above article. You're not giving any detailed rationale, it's pretty-well sourced and is germane to the article. Right now, it's starting to look a lot like you just don't like it - Alison ^❤ 18:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the one that has been removed by four different editors and even TU agrees does not belong in the article? Domer48_'fenian' 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats a different section isn't it?Traditional unionist (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Domer - not that one. Put it this way, guys - you're all edit-warring over this one, and tag-teaming the guy, too. You're not providing any sort of cogent rationale for doing so, and you're basically driving this guy into a block. Any more of that - and it's been ongoing on that article for weeks now - and I'll ensure you all are put on Troubles ArbCom probation, mm-kay? That's you, Dunc, Domer, TU, Thunderer and anyone else that edit-wars over there. This needs to stop, as does this OWNership thing that's going on - Alison ^❤ 18:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In my defence, only one of the last 50 edits has been made by me.Traditional unionist (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Which paragraph are you talking about? The only one BigDunc has removed is the same one that Jdorney and Valenciano also removed, with cogent reasoning. Domer48_'fenian' 18:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the wording on the Willie Bogle item in Collusion then change it to something more suitable whilst retaining the facts. It isn't deliberately provocative; it's true, it happened and it's verifiable. It proves (at least up to this point) that at least one IRA man was also in the UDR. The entire point of that section is to show that, whilst Loyalist paramilitary collusion was dominant, there was at least SOME similar activity carried out by the IRA.The Thunderer (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: PP on UDR

I don't think I've used the term 'tag teamed'. Anyhow, you all were edit warring, and it is quite unfair (according to this guideline) to only block one of you. Also, after further reviewing the situation I felt that page protection was the best route to go – which should encourage you all to discuss disputes on the articles talk page. I invite you to do that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You didn't use the term but you agreed with his accusation You know, you're right. I'm sorry that I missed this before... was your reply to accusations of tag teaming. So an editor going against consensus and continually reverting after a final warning from Alison here gets the page protected and his silly accusations upheld by an admin, please explain it to me. BigDunc^Talk

Blocks are preventative and not putative. This is the best decision by an admin I've seen over blocking. Rarely does an admin stick to the letter of the policy like this.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree I dont want him blocked I want these accusations to stop now. I am sick and tired of reading his BS. BigDunc^Talk 23:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Then don't. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps you should read Alisons other comment here, where she states she sees the same thing that I saw. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked her too she hasn't replied yet, your here now so could you explain it to me please. BigDunc^Talk 23:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather simple actually. You, and one or more accounts were gaming the system, by "tag-team" reverting this other guy, and the second he broke 3RR, you reported him. And then you all continued, and reported him again. I'm not going to dwell on this, and I think you should do the same. Why not go and discuss these disputes with the involved users instead of arguing about this? (Oh, and as a condition to unblocking, he said he would not revert anymore. As already said above, blocks are preventative and if he says he's going to stop, and the page is protected, the block wasn't preventing anything and ultimately undone).- Rjd0060 (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Be careful!

Dunc, I'm viewing this as a personal attack. Now, I'm not going to boilerplate warn you, but consider yourself warned. That was totally uncalled-for - Alison ^❤ 07:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Alison you have been making accusations left, right and center, and not one diff to back it up, that was totally uncalled-for. I'm viewing this as a personal attack. You have not answered any question I have asked here or here or backed up your accusations. Now why not open a RfC and lets sort this out? --Domer48_'fenian' 08:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am telling it like it is, so your good deed for the UDR POV pushing sock is to block me because I mean everything I say and I take your warning with utter contempt. Not once have you asked him to stop his utter BS regarding me, despite me asking you to have a word with him, but your in like a shot to protect him, you know he is a sock you did the CU. Didn't see you blocking him after he continued edit warring after one of your final warnings. So as I said I am showing the same contempt to your warning as he did. BigDunc^Talk 08:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There were more attacks and accusations being made during that sock report. All Alison said was "there is no abusive sockpuppetry going on here," not that it was not sockpuppetry. Since the editor admitted they were the same person, it would have been difficult. Since then, the editor has had four 3rr reports, and has been supported on each occasion. But as Alison has said, there is no "abusive" sockpuppetry going on here. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe it was Domer. It was one of you two twins anyway. If you don't want me on your page fair enough but hey, come on over to mine. I'll get some beers in, we can get drunk and fight over it. What do you reckon?

In all sincerity, and without flippancy, I don't want you to over-react and I don't want ill will between us. Let's get this sorted. Why don't we start a UDR work page somewhere, copy the article and work away on it together? Then when we've reached agreement we can ask admin to lift the edit ban on the original page?The Thunderer (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So Duncan is another editor who has issues with you or is conspiring against you. BigDunc^Talk 12:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The streets are full of them, you wouldn't believe what I've had to put up with! I'm thinking of hiring a bodyguard. Now what do you say, do we start a work page and try to make some progress - perhaps Domer would like to get involved too?The Thunderer (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've managed to start a workpage here. I've put set of objectives on the talk page and would now respectfully ask you and anyone else you know who is seriously interested in editing this article to join in editing and discussing.The Thunderer (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.The Thunderer (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Dunc I've added a lot of information on the workpage I've created and I really would appreciate your opinion. I don't want to be posting a load of guff when the actual page is reopened. Would you have a look in and make comments? Despite our disagreement I would actually appreciate your involvement.The Thunderer (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)