User talk:BigDunc/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Thanks for heads up

I've put my thoughts down on the UDR talk page.

Jdorney (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Astrotrain

Please leave his page alone, that is the IP he has consistently edited from recently, and I think we can assume that it is him blanking the page. If he wants to do that, he can. Thanks. Risker (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to inform the other editors who reverted this IP, or do you want me to do it. But seen as you have some inside knowledge maybe it would be better if you did. BigDunc^Talk 20:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've courtesy-blanked it. Please, all, just leave him be. He's no longer on the project - Alison ^❤ 20:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware it was Astrotrain, It was a mass deletion so I reverted it back as I always do when I come across pages that are blanked. BigDunc^Talk 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, and that's the proper thing to do. However, let's leave it alone now - Alison ^❤ 20:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please

Dunc, please. As per my comments on Alison's page. Please stop all this aggression. I've read enough of your work to know you're a bloody good editor and despite the fact you and I have crossed swords on matters of opinion and policy I have no wish to see you like this. For the sake of your dignity and all that you stand for please don't let yourself be drawn into a slanging match. Unlike other people you appear to be a very intelligent person and reasonably civil. Don't do this anymore. This is an honest and abject appeal to you. I know you don't class me as a friend but I bear no grievance against you.The Thunderer (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

ChubmasterFat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#ChubmasterFat The Thunderer (talk • contribs) 13:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)The Thunderer (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting interlude that?The Thunderer (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Dunc, if you're around at any time could you run your eye over this please? The Thunderer (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

UDR

It nearly happened again - we nearly finished up with two reflists.The Thunderer (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Great minds think alike LMAO. BigDunc^Talk 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's one way of putting it but trying to keep up with the changes when three editors are at it is a little difficult. At least on this occasion I was able to stop before I made it look as if I was in the middle of an edit war. Did you look at The Troubles in Portadown yet?The Thunderer (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cursory glance but would have similar opinion to User:Arch dude who commented on the talk page. BigDunc^Talk 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My answer would be the same however. Can you identify where the dubious synthesis is and I will try to eliminate it? I've read through it again and everything seems balanced to me.The Thunderer (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

B Specials

Seeing your contribs at the UDR and the troubles in general, I was wondering if you could sort of help out at the USC article, seeing as it has become slanted by the user above. A newbie thanks Freedscouser (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of your edits at the USC article and appreciate your help in keeping it non-POV but there are obviously one or two issues. It's got to be kept non POV I totally agree but I don't think you should remove facts just because those facts themselves disagree with established POV on the subject. You're going to find the Unionist contingent coming in and trying to remove things they disagree with because it makes the force look bad, but your deletion of cited facts regarding Nationalist POV is not in keeping with the neutral policy. I need you to work with me on this article so that it remains balanced and I don't want the same interminable rows about it as have been going on over at UDR. Would you agree? The Thunderer (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

At this point I've done a fair bit more on the article but what is missing is more meat on the actual duties of the force. There are suggestions that the USC carried out "reprisal murders" and I have nothing on that. There is plenty of material at CAIN but it's largely (as far as I can see ) the result of various enquiries or statements by political figures of the day. I need to read more to understand more so I'll be look at the "Crowned Harp" as well as continuing to examine the "Thin Green Line" (the latter in my possession). May I suggest you try and find alternative sources so that Catholic, Protestant, NI Govt, UK Govt and Irish Govt sources can be included. Also any reports by outside agencies would be quite good, like human rights organisations. I don't mind reading the material and editing the information in if you don't mind coming up behind me to compare notes on the synthesis and POV. That's me done for now though, I've been at this solid for two weeks while I've been on holidays but I've run out of steam. The Thunderer (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested quote supplied on article talk page. The Thunderer (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Bunting

Here is an article that I feel is well worth while expanding, if any info can be found. I vaguely remember his name being bandied about when I was very young, round about the time of Burntollet. My interest has been severely provoked by the fact that this (apparantly) rabid Loyalist, who went as far as to form his own vigilante group who were one of the key elements in the starting of the most recent troubles in Ireland, had a son who had totally opposite views to his father. Going so far as to join the Stickies and then INLA the guy finishes up getting done in by the UDA? We all know there were Proddies in the IRA but this has to be the story of the century with regards to them? The Thunderer (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

You have been reported here for your continued disruptive edits at Ulster Defence Regiment. The Thunderer (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Defence Regiment

I am placing you under the terms of the Troubles Arbcom enforcement on this article only after examining your editing. It is my opinion that your recent edits to this article have been unhelpful and obstructive.

This means that you are limited to one revert on this article per week. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert. If you violate the terms of the probation, you may be blocked for an appropriate period of time.

Logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Log_of_blocks, bans, and probations. Black Kite 18:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• [1] Quite apart from the fact that this is sourced, your edit was just tit-for-tat warring, as your edit summary suggested.
• [2] Adding onesource tag to section that clearly has more than one source.
• [3] adding onesource tag to a short uncontroversial section. You did that *after* I invoked the ArbCom sanction as well. Please keep to the terms of the sanction. Thankyou. Black Kite 20:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont see anything there that warrents being placed on probation. I was not even an involved party to that ArbCom case. BigDunc^Talk 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"...any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation". My only interest is ensuring that this article continues to be improved, which is why I have only invoked probation on this article rather than all the Troubles ones (which is the usual sanction). The sanction does not prevent you editing and improving the article, it is only to prevent any further tit-for-tat reverting. If I consider that any other editor (on whatever side) is preventing the improvement on the article, I will invoke a similar sanction, as I will on other Troubles articles. If you consider that other editors are doing this, please inform me. I will also use the ArbCom sanctions if I consider that editors are proxy reverting for those that are sanctioned. Black Kite 20:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont know if that is happening. But I do know that GDD1000 and The Thunderer are the same editor. GDD1000 being a self confessed member of the regiment with a COI and then he leaves when 2 Admins remove copyrighted material and the Thunderer arrives doing the exact same edits. BigDunc^Talk 20:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Ulster_Defence_Regiment. Black Kite 21:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunc, don't waste your time with this BS. What dose the the tag say? "This article or section relies largely or entirely upon a single source." GDD1000 has been at this for long enough, so what is good for the goose. Now the fact is the section relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Point 1. Point two "This article or section relies largely or entirely upon a single source," again. So what if the tag was placed *after* you invoked the ArbCom sanction. What is your point? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing why I have been put on probation Black Kite? A warning would have been more than enough for inserting tags. BigDunc^Talk 21:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw clearly problematic editing. Don't worry about it - it's not a big deal. It only prevents you reverting more than once a week on this article, and to be honest, as I've said above, if I see revert wars happening again I'll take further action anyway. Black Kite 21:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not worried about it as long as I have your assurance that you will be as quick with others, you just have to look at the USC article which you protected if you look at my contributions you will see any edit I make to any article that The Thunderer feels that he owns is instantly reverted by him. Could you give me your opinion on the edits on the USC page when I removed duplicate links. BigDunc^Talk 21:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My view on that is that it's a fairly pointless edit war. I don't see that either version really makes much difference, to be honest - why not compromise on keeping the text the same, but removing the extra wikilinks? Black Kite 21:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Further Report

As you don't seem to be settling I have filed a further report here. You are most welcome to comment. The Thunderer (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• And I have closed it. Both of you - this is unproductive. I don't intend to waste my time following your edits round the encyclopedia and protecting articles because of petty tit-for-tat edit wars. I have protected the Ulster Constabulary article for an hour. When that protection expires, if I see that type of edit-warring occurring again, I will invoke the full ArbCom sanction - that's all Troubles articles on both of you and probably throw in a couple of blocks as well. Engage on the talk pages, please. This is helping no-one at all. Copied to User:The Thunderer's talkpage. Black Kite 21:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Attacks on the UDR

Now, I found THAT edit perfectly reasonable in the circumstances and agree with the reasons why. You see, we CAN work together. The Thunderer (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have done that last week but left it as I didn't want the guff that would have surrounded it, that is why I asked an uninvolved admin to have a look. BigDunc^Talk 19:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got me all wrong you know. I am perfectly reasonable and happy to change an article or help someone else do so if I feel it warrants it. I accept that our working relationship here is tainted by past controversy and that colours my view on some of the things you do. I can't be more honest than that. If we BOTH realise that and tread a little warier for the time being until we establish a working partnership then perhaps we can make a substantial difference on some of these articles. I am not biased in any way, shape or form - not intentionally anyway. If you discuss things with me and I get to see your viewpoint on a specific matter then things could be quite different. Want to give it a try? The Thunderer (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hi - I was coming here to agree with you, but since you two seem to be coming to some agreement here, I'll leave it :) Black Kite 21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Could I be any fairer than this? The Thunderer (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and your gesture. As I've said before on many occasions I am not a POV pusher but recognise my own shortcomings when editing articles. I would be grateful for your help in ensuring that anything on matters concerning Ireland doesn't contain undue weight or synthesis for either faction, that they are left to reflect the true facts and that propaganda by both sides is clearly indicated as such. The Thunderer (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

100% agree I too am not a POV pusher no matter what some editors feel I always try to maintain a stance that is NPOV, so hopefully Black Kite will recognise this and lift IMO unfair sanction he imposed on me. BigDunc^Talk 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the major issue I have had with this is that you appear to be thinking that I'm pushing a certain POV then you write something to counter that. The instance of yer man's sexual conviction coming to mind straight away. The concerns about ethnic cleansing along the border seem to have been genuine and have been explored at academic level. It may not have been PIRA policy but it is appearing as such. If you feel for example that is an incorrect POV then we need to look at other ways of exploring the accusations and explaining them in such a way that a reader with no knowldege of Ireland can make a reasonable assessment from the facts - not by trying to dilute the facts by pointing out that a commentator later received a conviction for sexual offences. It could be summed up by saying that while Unionists accuse PIRA of an ethinic cleansing policy, PIRA deny it, although some ex-PIRA operatives support the accusations. As with the B Specials there may not have been an official policy in place but local commanders or activists could have pursued their own agenda without official sanction. Had you considered that? The Thunderer (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well a point on that, you felt the need to qualify who Farrell was and also you made an issue of the religon of the author of the RUC book, if he was an orange Protestant would you have put it in? Also McKenna just made a claim and is being given undue weight IMO also some ex-PIRA operatives according to no one but himself, this is a man who is described as a Walter Mitty character. So as there is no article on this man you at least need to qualify who and what he is. BigDunc^Talk 14:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As regards Farrell - v - Doherty I feel it's justified because People's Democracry definitely had a thing about the B Specials from the word go. As did NICRA. It's known that the Stickies and members of the Wolfe Tone Societies who were founder members of NICRA were intending to foment civil disturbance and use every propaganda means at their disposal to discredit, and if possible unseat the Stormont government. I've not doubt that PD used propaganda too. For that reason I would say that, on the surface anyway, Farrell's opinions are subject to scrutiny. Had Doherty been an Orange Protestant I would still have included him because it would have been a balancing view. In the event Doherty appears to be a fairly neutral source although the "author notes" in his book do say he was a member of the RUC Reserve so he has at least some RUC (and military) connections. As for McKenna, who described him as a "Walter Mitty"? If it was An Phoblact or some similar strongly Republican based publication then it has to be viewed along the lines that whatever was written about him there is also tinged with propaganda or at best, disinformation, even if it was true. The origins of the sources we use do have a bearing. You and others have noted that we must be careful when synthesizing material gleaned from the Regimental History, now I happen to agree with that because although Potter seems to be self analytical when it comes to the UDR there's no doubt that he would be a supporter and anything political he said would need to be examined very carefully. You've no idea how much useful stuff I discarded over the last month or so because it came from Unionist, DUP or Orange sources. These simply cannot be relied upon for a neutral POV and in my opinion the same applies to anything which has a known opposite bias. Let's face the truth here too, would you expect to find anything complimetary to the security forces in An Phoblact? Would you expect to see that publication condone the actions of a turncoat like McKenna or O'Callaghan? What might be useful would be to analyse why McKenna made his statements. Did he receive financial reward or benefit in kind? Was he a police informer? Is there anything else which you could see in his past which would make his allegations about his IRA activity untrue? It needs to be rock solid you see? Even if you are I had been in the IRA with the guy, inless we had been involved with operations he was on we might not have a clue about him. On the other hand, the UDR, UVF, UDA, RUC et al had eejits in their ranks and it stands to reason that PIRA and the Stickies had a few as well. Bunting for example - what the hell made someone with such a radical Proddie background join the Stickies and then be militant enough to join INLA? The Thunderer (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the IRA never said O'Callaghan was not a member, and as regard Doherty I doubt very much that if he was protestant and I added (A Protestant military historian from Derry) it would not have been reverted, this information that you added is all found in the first line of both mens articles which are linked so why the need to add it if not as you say well poisoning. Also Farrell is a highly respected solicitor and human rights activist. Also it wasnt An Phoblacht that called him walter mitty, I will find the source again as far as I remember it was a British newspaper but might be wrong.BigDunc^Talk 15:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)No I don't think I would have deleted Doherty's credentials if he was a Proddie, simply because of Farrell's. Everyone should be aware of how Republican groupings use human rights groups to make mischievous accusations and everyone should be aware how Unionists try to counter it. That's one of the reasons it's so hard to separate truth from fiction in some cases. For all that anyone may dislike PIRA and P/Sinn Feinn for having conducted a campaign of violence, their ability to manipulate domestic and international law in their favour has to be admired. They often leave the British government looking like eejits. If now a Unionist writer turned round and said the B Men were all Proddies, now that would be a bllody good quote to put in but you're going to find that all Unionist views are pro-USC and all Nationalist/Republican ones are anti, and for that reason non Nationalist/Republican Catholics are very likely to share those views. It's damnation by association. That's the over-riding consideration in all articles about the Troubles in my view. One side will try to outdo the other in making accusations then trying to poison the well about accusations made about their darlings. "Oh no that man can't be right because he was convicted of kicking his dog". You and I have to either pick the middle ground and keep the articles non-controversial, which I think is nigh on impossible, or ensure that when we do list one side's POV that we sensibly balance that with the opposing POV, except on the occasions where it is so blatantly obvious that there is nothing to counter the allegations. The Miami Massacre being one such very good example. I have many other cases from the Regimental History which I could list of UDR men convicted of terrorist crime, or thrown out for being associated with the UDA/UVF or even just because they were bad boys who used their own guns to rob banks or shops. There is the case of two privates from 3 UDR who were jailed for life because they committed murder. Potter says everyone knew they were bad boys but they escaped the normal vetting for UDR because they transferred into the UDR from regular units. I could litter that entire article with stuff like that but what's the point? We're not here to analyse everything that was ever done, we're here to provide as complete an encyclopedic (verifiable) record as we can - without caggage. The Thunderer (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

Dunc, if you can assure me that you'll discuss any controversial edits and/or reverts on the talk page of the UDR article before making them, then I'd be quite happy to remove the ArbCom sanction. Thanks, Black Kite 15:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I give you an assurance that I will. BigDunc^Talk 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. [4] Black Kite 17:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I seen thanks. BigDunc^Talk 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

UDR Uniforms

I can provide some insider stuff if you want to e-mail. The Thunderer (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Robert C. Knutson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert C. Knutson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Knutson. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? andy (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy change

Yes, just go on the talk page. We actually had a policy proposal that would have allowed players like Kearney an article (WP:FOOTYN), which I supported, but it was not accepted by the community. Thus even though in principle I support such articles, by our guidelines they must go - you can't break a law even if you don't like it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deleted page

Hi,

Can you recover the page for Timothy P Softley that has been speedy deleted.

Prof Softley has been Senior Proctor at the University of Oxford (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/patten-accepts-tall-order-of-leading-oxford-in-hard-times-591492.html) - one of the university's higher offices. He is a widely respected academic, and author (e.g. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atomic-Spectra-Oxford-Chemistry-Primers/dp/0198556888/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221826435&sr=8-1).

I believe that he qualifies as a notable chemist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctrwikipedia (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ctrwikipedia see here it will give you all the information that you require. BigDunc^Talk 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

If you want to invoke 3RR then I will too. The history of the article says it all. The Thunderer (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You are tag teaming again and that will be reported as well. The Thunderer (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Domer to stop too and please dont start with the tag team rubbish it holds no water. I have told you I will be removing unsourced content you have had ample time to source them but you haven't, yet you just revert me. Domer has indicated that he will stop now could you please do the same thanks. BigDunc^Talk 20:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been reverted. It is plain for you to see that I am working on the article. This is degenerating into an edit war now and I'm asking you to cease editing until a third party can intervene.The Thunderer (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Help with uploading image

BigDunc, sorry to bother you but I could use your help in uploading an image to an article. The image is Giardini beach at dusk. I've uploaded it from my files and it's there under my contributions. I want to upload it to the Wikipedia article Giardini Naxos. If you can help me with this I'll be ever so grateful. Thanks. The photo is mine-took it myself 25 July.--jeanne (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just insert image name inside these [[ ]] tags and place were you want on the article like this [[Image:beach.jpg]] should work fine just heading out now so no time any problems let me know. BigDunc^Talk 10:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried but no such luck. I cant get it to work--jeanne (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I got the image onto the page but I made a mess of the info box!--jeanne (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Had a go is that ok now? BigDunc^Talk 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's perfect!Thanks a million BigDunc, also for always tidying up my articles. That has not gone unnoticed. I hope you never leave Wikipedia!Cheers.--jeanne (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Hi Dunc. I've passed your e-mail onto TU through the Wiki system. I don't actually have a private e-mail address for him, unless he replies - in which case I will. The Thunderer (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats grand thanks but I got it to him he set up the mail last night a little problem with it. BigDunc^Talk 07:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

Your comments are requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Enough_is_enough.--Tznkai (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

per email

{{unblock-auto|1=87.232.1.94|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Arbtwi". The reason given for Arbtwi's block is: "Vandalism-only account".}}

The IP address above resolves to filter11.filter.imagine.ie which is a shared internet gateway. There are other users on there - Alison ^❤ 19:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Probation notice

Due to your edit warring on Ireland related articles, I have placed you on the probationary terms available to administrators under the The Troubles. This probation self expires in two months from this time, or until lifted by administrator or community discretion.--Tznkai (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me where I have breached policy. BigDunc^Talk 11:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[5] here is a good start. The mess that you participated in out here[6] is another. You were edit warring. You were being disruptive, QED, you were breaching a number of policies on civility, disruption, and edit warring.--Tznkai (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am placed on probation for edit warring you have not shown me any where that I have been involved in an edit war and the link you provided proves that. I went to the talk page 3 or 4 days before starting the edits you are refering to, stating that I would be removing any unsourced content which I did all of which were reverted and not once did I revert back. As regards the incivility in which I was abusive to TU I hold my hand up to that but in my defense I felt I was being patronised and really should not have said that to him. And that probably should have resulted in a block at the time, but to punish me now is punative. BigDunc^Talk 15:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A block at the time would have putative. Blocking policy is a farce as it is. I have no particular problem with punitive blocks, I just wish blocking policy would stop pretending blocks are not used as punishment.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you again TU I was out of order in my comments to you and definetly should not have said it and as I said should have been blocked at the time. BigDunc^Talk 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Notifications

There is a line or two at WP:AE#Other Notes that you should be paying attention to, and my unfinished report is here and your section is mostly finished.--Tznkai (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If I could interject here. I think Dunc has been gaming the system with Domer on 3RR reverts and other things (although not within the past 6 to 8 weeks it must be said). However, your argument against him is almost entirely nonsense. You cite removal of tagged unreferenced paragraphs as serious! I'm always frustrated at people doing that rather than looking for a source, but to enact probation with this as your higher standard of evidence is just incredulous. I think there could be a case made here, but the one offered is laughable.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TU much appreciated but if any admin asks Rockpocket I changed my editting pattern after consultation with him to stop this tag team calling that was going on. When RP explained how it looked I agreed with him and changed accordingly, yet I still find myself at the end of these sanctions. As regard finding a source TU I did I searched for 3 days for a sourece but could not find any and I did make my intentions known and asked any editors who could find them to insert them. BigDunc^Talk 15:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying not to say too much about this because I think it's making us all look bad however I do have to say, as I've said elsewhere that you and I had reached a workable compromise on editing via discussion. Where it seemed to fall down was when I pointed out I didn't have a lot of time to find references for some tagged items and they were deleted. I felt a little aggrieved about that. My situation hasn't changed btw, time is still short for business reasons which is why I still haven't addressed that particular issue. I am confident however that if you and I work together on that particular article we can remove much of the political cruft which it currently contains and leave only what is necessary to inform the reader of the political influences and factors which are relevant. The problem at the moment, in my view, is that there's too much accusation and counter accusation throughout the article and that can be removed. The Thunderer (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

... for catching this guy earlier today. It's nice to know someone's looking out for me. If you want the background to that guy, you can read it on ANI here. Thanks again ;) - Alison ^❤ 04:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem you tend to attract a rare breed of editor. BigDunc^Talk 11:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeannne

BigDunc, I've tried to do what you suggest but no luck. Another editor is trying to delete my latest article. Obviousky he does not understand that it's a historical article and not nonsensical. Thanks.--jeanne (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, BigDunc, for saving Maud le Vavasour. I had spent a better part of the morning creating that article.--jeanne (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Editor definitly used the wrong tag. But that is why you should have the refs correct to stop editors placing tags on the article. What problem are you having regrding the URL for peerage.com? BigDunc^Talk 10:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Maud le Vavasour is found at Peerage.com on person page 19585. I just cannot get the URL to link on the page.--jeanne (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hallelujah! I believe I did it right this time.--jeanne (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nearly I fixed it for you just there. BigDunc^Talk 11:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Also the tudorplace URL need to be fixed I'll have a look at it now. Could you point me in the right direction doesn't have a search facility that I can see. BigDunc^Talk 11:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunc, it's www.Tudorplace.com.ar/VAVASOUR.htm Thanks for all your help. That other editor probably saw the name Robin Hood and thought I was a crank. He didn't realise Robin was based on Fulk.--jeanne (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No he was warned for adding inappropriate tags to a couple of articles so it was not just yours. BigDunc^Talk 12:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion..

I wouldn't take me blocking Thunderer for 24 hours as carte blanche to do any further reversion of his work on the UDR article. He's informed me that he's asked a neutral administrator to look at the edits in question and I'll not protect the page until such review has been done, but let's not make a volatile situation any worse, ok? (I'm not saying you guys will, I'm just covering my bases here, and I left a notice for Domer as well). SirFozzie (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice way to assume good faith Fozz I have no intention of reverting anything I made the edit so that this would not happen but unfortunatley Thunderer sees any edit I make as looking to add POV and I had emailed Spartaz yesterday about my concerns and he gave good input on the article talk page. I reverted edits made by myself Domer and Thunderer so that we could try and start again from a neutral point. Do you not see what I was attempting to do? BigDunc^Talk 13:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS

Hi - essentially, we're talking about a self-published source here, so Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources applies. My take on something like this would be that there's no reason not to include it as a source for something uncontroversial, but on the other hand it isn't reliable enough to be the only source if the material is contentious. Black Kite 14:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The ISBN number is 978-0-9558069-0-2. The website is an online reproduction of the book. Thunderer (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Hi Dunc. I have placed you, Domer and Thunderer all on a one month topic ban from Troubles related articles. See here for details of your topic ban. SirFozzie (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually Fozzie, I wonder if you have the power and authority to impose this, even if you do, I wonder of it is fair or a good idea. I know you are hoping to becom an Arb, so I very much hope this is not a rash decision. I have just tried to look at Dunc's block log, and it appears to be blank, I'm obviously pressing all the wrong buttons to check it. I'm sure you don't intend to be unreasonably harsh so perhaps you could advise Dunc how to appeal or proceed from here. I'm sure this will prove to be a storm in the proverbial teacup. Giano (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Brooke

Could you take a look at Talk:Basil Brooke, 1st Viscount Brookeborough?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditional unionist (talk • contribs)

Sorry for your ban

I'm sorry to hear you are under a month ban.This means you cannot edit Irish-related articles? I just submitted an article on the 3rd Countess of Ormond and an editor wants to delete it. Why does this always happen on Irish peerage articles?--jeanne (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeanne yep IMO a very harsh sanction and for what I really dont know, but it is only Troubles releated articles. I will try and keep an eye out for your new articles in case it happens again. BigDunc^Talk 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a shame. What did you do? My article they want to delete is this one Anne Welles, Countess of Ormonde. It's always the Irish noblewomen that attract deletion templates. I pointed out that a Countess of Ormonde was an important Irish peerage. Wikipedia has articles on women whose only notability is that they screwed Mick Jagger, see L'Wren Scott! Excuse the language.--jeanne (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No they are not trying to delete it that is just a notability tag, I will have a look over the article and see if it warrents the tag. BigDunc^Talk 18:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as she was a Countess I created an article for her. Now had she been the wife of an unimportant nobleman or indeed Ormonde's second wife, I wouldn't have bothered with an article. But Anne was the wife of a peer.--jeanne (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability is a strange one have a good read through that link and if you can add more about her don't hesistate. BigDunc^Talk 18:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban

I'll ask you forgive me for getting back to you in brief and also in sloth, this is a big headache of an area.

Let me state that I, right now believe both you and the Thunderer are both trying your best to be helpful and cooperative. It is my further belief you're both failing at that. From my perspective its like watching two prize winning showdogs fight: I don't care who started it or even why you're fighting, it just needs to stop.

I think its clear that you and Thunderer cannot work together without an intermediary involved, at least at this stage. Too big of a deal, too much bad blood, and quite possibly too much idiocy from surrounding editors. Its either egging the two of you on or obscuring your productive edits, I'm not sure, but when I look, and when other admins and community members look at the editing, they just see a lot of trouble. It may not be right, but it is what it seems everyone else is seeing.

So, what can you do? First step is to accept that the larger community has in good faith, gotten really annoyed, and that probably has something to do with you. Step two is, and this is my recommendation, find a mediator. I'm not Irish, I'm not even remotely Irish, so I can't understand a thing about any of the content disputes that have been going on. So, find someone who can, that both you and The Thunderer respect, and get that persons' help.

Even without me having been pushing for relatively severe sanctions in the past, I think it has become clear to you by now that the larger community is frustrated. I think its also clear that the current situation isn't working. It is my belief that it is not you or the Thunderer that is causing the problem, but the interaction of the two of you that is the problem, so you need to find a way to break that cycle.

At this point, I am in favor of lifting the sanctions on you and the Thunderer as long as the two of you are in some sort of mediation. Some sort of progress towards that goal would look very good for you, or some sort of brilliant idea. I will be monitoring the situation closely from here on out.--Tznkai (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any issues working with BigDunc. I would welcome the use of a supervising administrator but I don't know any who could spare the time to help. Thunderer (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Something completely different

Any interest in looking into Charles Joseph Dolan? I think he was the first person to contest a UK election as a Sinn Féin candidate, but I've had trouble finding good sources for his later life in the US. I thought maybe you might be interested or know someone who was. Choess (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look to see if I have anything on him but I haven't heard of him before.BigDunc^Talk 08:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic Ban in abeyance

The topic ban placed on both User:BigDunc and User:The Thunderer is now in abeyance. Instead, they are placed on a strict 0 Revert Rule, specifically on Ulster Defence Regiment, but this remedy can also be applied to any other article in which they find themselves in conflict, by any administrator..

Good luck, and I hope we can get things right :) SirFozzie (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

I've proposed modifications to existing sanctions here please comment.--Tznkai (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe Brolly

Okay thanks for telling me--86.41.89.113 (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally agree with it but it seems to be policy now. BigDunc^Talk 13:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Why do you think you and I need further mediation? I thought we were working together in a reasonable fashion?Thunderer (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

UDR

Dunc, inlight of the ongoing discussion on the talkpage, I don't think editing the article at this juncture really sends the right message. I would ask that you self-revert until the thread has moved towards a consensus. David Underdown (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how consensus should be needed for a claim that is not backed up by a refrence it was first added here and when a citation tag was placed on it the ref was inserted here. Now the page in question doesn't say what the ref claims and I gave Thunderer time to tell me where it say it he hasn't done it so I removed it per WP:OR and WP:V. And as I said I dont need consensus to do that. BigDunc^Talk 12:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's about perceptions, you've started a dialogue, and then apepar to ignore the fact that it's still going on. In a legalistic sense, you're quite right, but standing on principle isn't going to help improve things. You'll get better results if you get buy-in from Thunderer as well. By all means make it clear that if and adequate source hasn't been found by say tomorrow, you intend to remove it, but to just go ahead whilst the thread is still running appears high-handed. What's left in the lead doesn't really read particualrly well either, it may be best to introduce the language used by Hattersley when announcing the formation of the UDR, which I had added to the talk discussion-some indication of the tasks that the unit was intended to carry out should be in the lead, since that is intended to summarise tha article. David Underdown (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with David here Dunc, as per my comments on the article talk page. If you can't find the ref then I will delete it (not the wording) until the ref is found. It is not a controversial item so it doesn't need any citations on it. Please don't place you and I in any position where we might be perceived as starting to edit war. It would be interesting to know why you think the reader shouldn't be aware that they were an anti-terrorist milita. Thunderer (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi there. Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page :) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 12:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. When I saw the new message bar I thought he had come on my page :) BigDunc^Talk 12:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah. I'm just a speedy thanker :P ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I see an RfA will be starting soon not sure if your allowed to tell me when it starts but I will keep an eye out for it and wish you the very best of luck. BigDunc^Talk 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks again :) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ulster Defence Regiment. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

As a follow up to this: I don't think it's necessary to formally "ban" you from editing contentious articles while this Mediation is happening, but until I can talk with whatever poor soul gets the job of mediator, let's call this an "extremely strong suggestion from an exasperated administrator". Please do not make any changes to contentious articles without the explicit ok from Thunderer. (IE, do not make any changes to UDR, PIRA or other pages without posting the change to either Thunderer's talk page or a page I'll set up (neutral ground, so to speak), and getting his ok on it. Ok? SirFozzie (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've set up a page for discussion of changes. User talk:SirFozzie/NI Article Discussions. SirFozzie (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

BigDunc: I may be willing to assist with the mediation of the Ulster Defence Regiment case. Would you be willing to make an opening statement on the case talk page? Sunray (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit like closing the barn door after the horses have fled...

But A) Did you get my email, re:Domer, and B) What do you think of it? SirFozzie (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: You might want to comment

Thanks, Dunc. I will do so. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For repairing vandalism to my user page. --John (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem John. BigDunc^Talk 21:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for your support in my RFA!! • If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy • ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome and congrats enjoy the mop. BigDunc^Talk 19:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think the piece about football chants on the Sands page is irrelvant?

As the title says.. it's a small minority of bigots who make the chants, and I feel that their voice doesn't merit being heard to a wider audience.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.10.46 (talk • contribs)

I would tend to agree with you maybe it can be reworded somewhat. Have you any suggestions on how to reword it? BigDunc^Talk 19:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Clivemcfarland

FYI: I have received OTRS confirmation that the account is legit. Thanks for the UAA report! :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No problems thanks for clarification. BigDunc^Talk 11:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be?Traditional unionist (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Per the username policy in particular Use of a real name allows contributions to be more easily traced to an individual. This may make a contributor more vulnerable to issues such as harassment. I refered it to UAA, just in case it wasn't who it was claimed to be. BigDunc^Talk 12:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

MedCom

Hi Dunc: I made some further comments about your opening statement here. Would you be able to respond? Sunray (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Flag, ribbon etc.

Hi Dunc, I'm guessing its got something to do with the donation notice (even though it's hidden). I'm just going out, but I'll check it when I get back. Black Kite 21:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds logical thanks. BigDunc^Talk 21:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely that, as you'll see if you log out and look at the page. I'll have a look tomorrow to see if there's an easy fix, cos that donation notice is going to be there a long time! Black Kite 22:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff thanks very much for your help. BigDunc^Talk 22:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. You'll need to reverse the changes when the donation banner vanishes, because it'll send the pages wonky again. Black Kite 23:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. BigDunc^Talk 23:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BNP is not fascist, take Political correctness away from Wikipedia!

I am discussing the point "Is white survival fascism?" please do not remove my comments, thanks. Fascism should be taken away from that article. If you do not think so, then discuss that instead deleting other people words. Thanks.Eros of Fire (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eros of Fire (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)See talk page guidelines for what a talk page is for. BigDunc^Talk 23:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism in Northern Ireland

Your edit in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Armagh_Republican_Action_Force article has been undone as it is clearly a non NPoV edit. How does an article that describes a Northern Irish terrorist unit and alleged terrorist acts which where carried out in Northern Ireland not fit rhe category of Terrorism in Northern Ireland?? Please keep Wikipedia neutral. Mabuska (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is inline with every other article look at PIRA UVF INLA and UDA. BigDunc^Talk 19:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Terms of editing

I saw your note on the MedCom talk page. Domer48 has clarified that you were not referring to the creation of a sandbox page on the UDR. I'm not sure why T. has made these edits. In any case I have left him a note about it. I hope you do not not take this as your licence to also violate the terms. Sunray (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice assumption of bad faith Sunray. It is not me you should be talking too this is the 3rd time that the terms were broken. BigDunc^Talk 12:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A word on your mediation and recent edit war

There is clearly a significant problem, and I intend to get to the bottom of it. I am not going to block anyone yet: there are several "guilty" parties, but I'm not yet sure if any one deserves more severe sanctions than the other. I am going through the contribution logs slowly and carefully. Ideally by the time I am done, the point will be moot. If not however, everyone is going to have a bad day: some much worse than others. Preliminarily, I have this to say to all of three of you:

The one blame I am willing to lay on equally all three of your shoulders is this: you responded to reverting by reverting. This is the fundamental error in your method: all edit wars, revert wars especially are incredibly harmful, far more harmful than leaving an infuriating edit while you pursue editors on the talk page or seek outside assistance. It is just Wikipedia. There is no benefit to reverting an edit now that can't wait for a mediator, admin, third party, or a well measured post on the talk page to step in instead.

Mediation is not about policing, and it certainly isn't about policing eachother. You maintain your end of the bargain, even if the other person doesn't hold up theres at the moment. Besides the fact we need to accept that good faith mistakes can be made, there is naked self interest involved: the party that follows the rules best and in the best faith gains an advantage over the other. If the admins are slow, or hands off for the moment, or longer, that can be frustrating: but we are volunteers with busy lives, and other concerns both on and off wiki. Patience is hard, but it is so necessary in mediation.

The report I have heard from the mediator is that all three of you have broken the mediation agreement. Despite his obvious frustration, he is still willing to come back to the table if all of you are. Something you should remember: the mediation is for all of you. After this latest stunt, the community at large and the admin corps, from what I have been told, is frustrated and upset. They are not particularly caring for which one of you is more to blame than the other.

As far as I am concerned, you are *all* out of reversions, under any circumstance. No more reversions unless the reverted edit is so severe you are willing to endure a block - even if you are right. --Tznkai (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S: I am aware there has been progress. I hope that this will be the low point in the mediation process, and things will improve rapidly after this.

Editing Terms

I see that you have edited the Royal Ulster Constabulary today. That is not in keeping with the Terms of Editing agreed to as part of the mediation. Would you be willing to abide by the Terms so that we can continue the mediation? Sunray (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish to continue with the mediation but I feel the terms of editing need to be changed because as they stand they were made a mockery of with breaches. Maybe we could come up with a new set of terms. I agree to the Guidelines for Interaction despite no assumption of good faith being shown to me in fact down right hostillity and personal attacks. BigDunc^Talk 15:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If you were to follow the Terms and someone else were to make a "mockery of them," it would be a simple matter to deal with that individual. When other participants then violate the Terms... well, we see what then happens. Tznkai's message, above, expresses the concerns of the community. Sunray (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Then why was the simple matter to deal with that individual not done? I wan't to move on with this mediation but refusing to deal with infractions has not helped. What was said when I was called a village idiot what was said when the terms were breached. Correct me if I am wrong all I can remember is don't point the finger. Can I have an assurance that future breaches will be dealt with severly blocks would be appropriate. I don't wan't this thread to read like an attack an you as that is not what my intetion is because you like the rest of the community are volunteers and I respect the help you are giving in your free time. BigDunc^Talk 16:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, as a mediator: By the time I was became aware of what had happened, it was not a simple matter of one person making an infraction and another making a report about it. There were retaliatory actions taken and a revert war was in progress. I am getting tired of repeating this, but once more will say that once that happens all a mediator or an admin can say is "STOP." Sunray (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Help:Edit summary

I was just reading the link you sent me about Help:Edit summary and it says at the bottom "Wikipedia is gay because we cant edit this page say I if you agree." I'm not sure how to fix it because I can't see how to to edit it. Cooper999 (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed it now you will see a lot of that and it is usually spotted very quickly and reverted. To do this just go to the History tab at the top of the page and you can undo another editor's contributions from there. Well spotted and happy editng. BigDunc^Talk 18:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar

Dunc, I was only joking but I really appreciate your gift of the Barnstar. I enjoy creating the royal and noble heiresses articles, but I do admit they are time-consuming, so it's nice to see one's efforts noticed. Thanks again. I see you are still having problems on the UDR page.--jeanne (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome, not really the UDR article more an editor who owns the article. BigDunc^Talk 10:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit

Why did you flag my edit for Hollywood Records? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2bjewled (talk • contribs) 23:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view it will explain why I reverted your edit. It sataes that All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. BigDunc^Talk 01:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert

Dunc please don't revert this "new" editor. We are working thing out on the mediation and a check user may address any issues which may arise. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I seen socks ahoy!!! I have no intention of getting in to an edit war but thanks for your comment. BigDunc^Talk 18:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Questions

Hi BigDunc,

I'm unsure why it's wrong for me to remove the questions I placed on the talk page, if I consider the replies to be incorrect in terms of their description of our websites. As they are detrimental to our business I'd like to appeal to your better nature and request you take them off on our behalf.

Best Regards

Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.166.70 (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I know what you are talking about could you explain with a link and if I can help I will. BigDunc^Talk 09:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi BigDunc,

Thanks for your help, I feel like I've been banging my head on a wall for the past 24 hours. I've been such an advocate of Wikipedia, the first to promote the site (hence we wanted to add our sites to the external links) but all that good feeling for the project has been washed away, I just hope I can get that back when this gets resolved. In the end our sites are actually our livelihoods, and so any detrimental comments (which actually are not correct) can only hurt that so its not funny as I suspect the editor finds it.

They are on the discussion pages for York, Harrogate, Carlisle and Torquay, and are all entitled Simply...

I've tried taking them off myself but they just then get placed back...

Again, thanks in advance for your help.

Best Regards

86.136.166.70 (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi I'm afraid I can't really do much to help as wikipedia has a policy regarding external links which can be read here and as regard the removal of other contributors comments it is frowned upon by the community to remove anyones comments. Everything posted on wiki is released under the GNU Free Documentation License and as such is for everyone to read. I honestly can't see anything that is detremental to your site but you might find something here that will be of help. BigDunc^Talk 16:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I dont want a link from wikipedia now, to any of ou sites. This incident has left me cold with the wikipedia concept. But our site was described by an editor as just a collection of links to businesses which it is not? That seriously downplays the site and all the hard work? How can untruths be allowed to stand on the site? If authors own the copyright, are you not allowed to take my questions and contributions off on my behalf and just leave their comments? I really dont see why its in the interest of wikipedia's futures users to have this on, nor does it paint wikipedia in a good light to be upsetting people and leaving on content after this has been flagged? Can you perhaps put a request to the editors concerned as they may listen to you? We'd really appreciate it and do feel this is purely an attempt to have a go, but my belief was genuine in that it would help users but like I say, I wish we'd never even thought of having links from this site now.

Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.166.70 (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

USC image

He has now attempted to make a fair use claim for the use in the USC article. It may well not be sufficient, but better now to use {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}}, rather than keep fighting over it-as I recall you are also subject to the Troubles arbcom decision (apologies in advance if I've got that wrong), so you're potentially just as likely to get blocked if the reviewing admin decides it takes two to edit war. David Underdown (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks David I will add that also 3RR doesn't count in copyvio removal. BigDunc^Talk 15:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Deception by omission

BigDunc, your post here is deceptive by omission. You failed to state that I myself removed the offensive comments [7][8] exactly 15 minutes after protecting the page to stop the edit war. During that 15 minutes I got the user to agree not to re-post the offensive content. Feel free to vote however you like, but please get the facts right. Jehochman ^Talk 20:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict)NO you removed it when Thunderer told you too if he had not have given permission you would have left it with PP in place. BigDunc^Talk 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

nessan quinlivan

i added the sentence that does duplicate that he escaped but it expands on it saying how and with who and their subsequent actions... why do you keep deleting the bits that are not repetitive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.33.92 (talk • contribs)

I have rewrote the piece you keep adding. BigDunc^Talk 12:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

UDR

I'm lead to understand mediation has ended, so go ahead - but of course act with best practice, etc, etc. Was there anything productive done in mediation, in your view?--Tznkai (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure would be my truthful answer, but the comment you left on my page a while back did open my eyes a little as I was becoming a little blinkered and I'm sure that your comment along with the mediation will help me to edit a little better. BigDunc^Talk 18:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me

I'm sorry, I was merely joking. No need to get huffed about it, geez. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool then no harm no foul. BigDunc^Talk 16:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The Nation of Frais

You tagged The Nation of Frais as {{db-nonsense}} but this article is not a page "consisting purely of incoherent text". It is very likely a hoax, which qualifies under {{db-vandalism}}. Remember to use this specific template when you encounter hoax articles. Cheers, Cunard (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No bother thanks for that. BigDunc^Talk 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of cats

Can you tell me why you reverted the categories "Organizations designated as terrorist" without a reason? Thanks, --Cameron* 22:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There is already a Cat Proscribed paramilitary organizations on the pages. BigDunc^Talk 22:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless my category is global. If you have no further objections I will readd the categories. --Cameron* 12:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, a Cat Proscribed paramilitary organizations is already on the pages. Please read the notices on the top of the article talk pages also thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 13:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Funkitron...I removed the Speedy Deletion Tag

Hi. You nominated Funkitron for Speedy Deletion under A7, but it certainly didn't meet it. It is significant because it has developed games such as Scrabble, which is very commonly played, and Slingo Quest, which won awards...and it said so in the article. I don't think it meets the criteria, because developing those games, that shows plenty of significance.

If you have any further questions, leave me a message on my talk page. I'll get back to you as soon as I am able. K50 Dude the Great^{Talk to me!}_{Look at me!}

Your question at RFAr

You asked: So could someone explain why these examples below are not linked to their official titles, and the reverse is the case only on Ireland? Well the reason is explained at WP:COMMONNAME: in all the examples you cite, the most commonly used name is the title we use, because that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Ireland is currently the exception because Ireland is the only country in that list that also has a significant, different geo-political entity with the same name (the island of Ireland). When two different things have the same name we need to disambiguate them somehow, and it was decided - rightly or wrongly - that Ireland (the state) should be disambiguated to ROI.

Now, that may not be the best state of affairs, and its perfectly reasonable to argue that the article about the state should be listed under "Ireland" and the island should have another title. However, its nevertheless true that the reason Ireland is the exception is because of of the unique situation described above. Rockpocket 19:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME of the country is Ireland. The Government is the Irish government. Its people are the Irish people. What about Spain for a different geo-political entity? The Government is the Spanish government. Its people is the Sapnish people. Likewise France, Germany etc. So Ireland has a significant, different geo-political entity in that the name of the island is Ireland, the name of the country is Ireland, the name of the Government is Irish Government, its people are the Irish people and the whole world call it Ireland we need to disambiguate? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the WP:COMMONNAME of the island is Ireland, too. So yes, the name of the country is Ireland AND the name of the island is Ireland. Ireland the country and Ireland the island are not the same entity, so yes, we need to disambiguate. I'm not sure anyone else is contesting this fact. You do appreciated what "disambiguate" means on Wikipedia? It is "the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article". That definition is exactly the process we find ourselves with here. The primary issue is not whether disambiguation is needed. The issue is how to disambiguate, specifically which - if either - should be under the title "Ireland", and what the other get titled. Rockpocket 20:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland the country and Ireland the island are not the same entity? What is wrong with this Article Ireland? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources tell us so, see the very first sentence of the Daly journal article. Besides, if the island and the country were the same entity, what were The Troubles all about? Rockpocket 21:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Come on Rock, you did not answer the questions. LOL. Reliable sources tell us that Ireland is the name of the country and is the name of the island. What is the very last sentences in the article by Daly? The British government use the term Ireland. So what is wrong with the Ireland article as it is? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The article you refer to is about the island (it says so quite clearly at the top of the page), so if you want to read about the island then there is nothing wrong with it. If you want to read exclusively about the state, then you are reading the wrong article. Are you suggesting we just get rid of the current ROI and leave the one was currently have at "Ireland"? Rockpocket 00:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Rock I think your wrong? "Ireland is the name of an island in the North Atlantic. Ireland is also the name of a state, comprising roughly three-quarters of that island, which secured independence from Britain in 1922. This article will explore the different names for the Irish state and their political implications." What I suggest is the ROI article should be about the term. Explaining both its use and abuse, the above cited article would be a good reference for this, don't you think? --Domer48_'fenian' 00:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with that, but then where you would propose we have the article about the state of Ireland? Rockpocket 01:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland--Domer48_'fenian' 01:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with that, but then where you would propose we have the article about the island of Ireland? Rockpocket 07:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland is the name of the island and the name of the state, sub pages are also used. For example History of Ireland is a sub page of the Ireland. What do we do with the rest of the countries in Europe? What do we do with the rest of the island states in the world? Do we have seperate articles for them? --Domer48_'fenian' 08:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do when the island is divided into multiple, internationally recognized political entities, such as Ireland is. See, for example, our article on Hispaniola, which is divided into Haiti and Dominican Republic. Or New Guinea divided into Papua New Guinea and Papua. Or Borneo, divided into Kalimantan, Malaysia and Brunei. Or Timor, divided into East Timor and West Timor. Why, pray tell, should the island of Ireland be the exception? Rockpocket 09:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not, you have Ireland and Northern Ireland. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Note you point to two articles, about the island and one of the political entities (the clue is in the opening sentence of each). Note also all the other examples have three (or more): the island and both (or more) political entities within the islands. You are proposing that Ireland be an exception to this. Why? If your answer is going to be "its not" again, then I think we are done here. I'm happy to discuss a resolution to this, but I have better things to be doing than playing word games. Rockpocket 17:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Rock are you seriously suggesting this Disambiguation, Lead and Info box,(Ireland) dose not address any and all issues you may have? Have you read the evidence put forward by Angus? Now the only problem I have with it is the Republic of Ireland article should deal with the subject of the term and not be an alternative Ireland article. In the info box it should be Ireland and not Republic of Ireland. Other than that is ok? All you have used is the title of an article by Daly which was taken from a headline in the Independent newspaper. Whereas I used the whole article, along with evidence from both governments. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read my evidence more clearly. I never used the title as evidence for anything. But I think we have taken up enough of Dunc's talk page are are not really getting anywhere with this anyway. Rockpocket 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Angusmclellan gives a compelling case in his evidence, are the 1000's of editors a day all confused? You are looking for an article on Ireland you type in Ireland, why should they be brought to a disambiguation page. People are not stupid they know what they are searching for. BigDunc^Talk 20:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a completely different point. How do you know what people want to read about when they type in "Ireland"? Or do you, too, believe there is only one primary meaning to that term and therefore the island and the state are the same for our purposes (despite the fact the reliable sources - and common sense - clearly inform us otherwise). Rockpocket 21:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Rock if I may, "despite the fact the reliable sources"? What sources? An article by Daly, which I might remind you dose not support your arguement is all that has been provided. "Common sense" is also against you when you look at the number and scope of the reliable sources used to support the contension that Ireland is the WP:COMMONNAME. Unless you "clearly inform us otherwise" Ireland is the name of the state and the island. The Ireland article has a Disambiguation, Lead and Info box to inform the reader, and as has been pointed out Angusmclellan gives a compelling case in his evidence. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 61/52/7; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Wizardman and Malinaccier for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for the trust the community has placed in me. A special Christmas song for you all can be found at the right hand side of this message! Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Dendodge TalkContribs, 17:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The California Honeydrops

hi, the page was deleted. and i have not heard back from thingg at all. would it be possible to please send me the deleted page so i can edit it? thanks, Cahoney1 (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket has set up the article in your sandbox, ant questions you can ask me here happy editing. BigDunc^Talk 19:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Dunc, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas, and a happy and prosperous 2009. Cheers--jeanne (talk) 08:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and seasons greetings to you and yours. BigDunc^Talk 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Looks a bit like you are playing tag team here rather than using the talk page. This is a matter of citation support not political belief so I strongly suggest that you reverse given the current sensibilities on the page. --Snowded TALK 11:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Tag team with who? BigDunc^Talk 11:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

With 86.42.71.111 whose earlier changes were accompanied by some pretty sectarian comments repeated on the talk page. You know enough to know that it was a controversial change. As it happens politically I think a united Ireland would be the best thing all round, however that is not the case and the citation record shows support for Northern Ireland being one of the countries of the UK. I think its a weaker case than Wales, Scotland and England (where the history is substantially different). However such a change should be discussed on the talk page. --Snowded TALK 11:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy to withdraw the tag team comment. The real point is that the original edit from 86x also had a pretty extremist comment attached (and the talk page was worse). The correct process (I think) would have been to take it to the talk page for discussion given that all parties are fully aware of the history on this issue. Either way thanks for pointing it out - point taken --Snowded TALK 12:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I struck the comments out, as they were'nt nessary to the arguement you were making. I removed my post also as no longer being nessary. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO, Northern Ireland, Scotland, England & Wales should be described as constituent countries. However, I'm in the minorty on that & apparently there's citations backing up the usage of country. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at NI talk page, I found on a quick search numerous sources that don't list it as country. BigDunc^Talk 22:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I peeked, those are sovereign countries (which Northern Ireland is not). GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you define non-sovereign countries for me please. BigDunc^Talk 23:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia tells me Scotland, England, Wales & Northern Ireland are non-sovereign countries. I certainly don't approve of them being on any Countries list. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest; I've come to the conclusion ('bout 2 months ago), that the United Kingdom suffers from multiple identity crises. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No more than the average American does, GoodDay, myself included. (Irish-American), (French-American), etc. Americans such as myself who have lived most of their adult lives in Europe are regarded as Americans by the Europeans- see plastic paddy, but as Europeans by the Americans.--jeanne (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)