User talk:BigDunc/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

User Name Change

My user name is Natureofinformation, which is the title of my book. I have been advised to change it, but do not understand why. Can you please tell me the reason, and whether or not I can keep this user name if I want to.

Many thanks in anticipation.

Paul YoungNatureofinformation (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Natureofinformation, your username is a promotional username which is against Wikipedia's username policy. You may request a username change at Wikipedia:Changing username. Hope that helps.BigDunc^Talk 21:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely helps. Thank you so much.Natureofinformation (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to know

Hey BigDunc, I was watching the help desk tonight, and saw this. Thought you might be interested since I got the impression that you and Titch were close. — Ched :  ?  05:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What I do?

Hiya BigDunc. I fear that I've unintentionally peeved Domer48, considering he's twice deleted messages I've left him. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks that way, maybe he is feeling got at by editors at the Ireland naming dispute I see he was personally attaked a couple of times today so his sensitivities are bound to be running high, maybe an email to explain what you mean will be answered more kindly. BigDunc^Talk 21:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how to work e-mails. Anyways, I'll leave him alone. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, best. BigDunc^Talk 21:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry if they are stubby but somebody has to start them! This transwikiying stuff from the various wikis is a messy job but we need to try to be more coordinated between wikipedias I think as the content that exists even now on other wikipedias couls really help fill in the gaps in the long run and be a major benefit to coverage on here. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree keep it up, best. BigDunc^Talk 21:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mooger Fooger

Looks like it was re-AfD'd. Since the content isn't the same, it's most likely not a candidate for speedy deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats great thanks if a situation arises like that again do I just remove the speedy tag? BigDunc^Talk 21:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it me.......

..............or does it stink of socks?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think i smell one around. BigDunc^Talk 17:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there is about four or five. Where is ONiH when you need him?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully he is watching and doing a little digging. I see spurios arb enfocement request against you place is madness. BigDunc^Talk 12:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The little ribbon on top of your page is just for show, then? Bastun^nutsaB 13:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain that statement you implying I am harrasing another editor? BigDunc^Talk 13:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all - just once it's Vk doing it then obviously he's in the right and any complaint is dismissed as "spurious". Bastun^nutsaB 14:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Naw, just your complaint is being dismissed as "spurious" - guess why?--Vintagekits (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hitch

RoI should indeed go to an article dealing with term, but could create an impasse to moving forward. Some suggestions for it as dab page have been added. Would that be a move forward, and do review after some months if required. Tfz 19:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you honestly think if you agree to that, that further down the line a review would be possible, look how long this process took, ROI should redirect to the act with a dab to an Ireland article. BigDunc^Talk 19:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that it might get it 50% of the way to an acceptable outcome. There is a bit of digging in of heels there, and wonder if it will ever inch forward to the npov outcome. Tfz 22:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Sir

Excuse me Sir, I am Cameron Domingo nephew of Plácido Domingo, the Left Chairman of Princess Hotels & Resorts. I have told my uncle as part of the organisations advertisement campaign that i will be surfing the net looking for suitable units to advertise on, for example bring more attention to the organisation.

I will appreated it very much if you can help me with my actions, rather that mocking me! and the company i have taken my time for to help.

Yours sincerely

Cameron Domingo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamM321 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not mocked you but have offered to help you but from your post it appears you have a conflict of interest and are attempting to use wikipedia for promotion which is against our policies. BigDunc^Talk 20:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you very much. If it appears that I am breaking Wikipedia policies than please say and then we can get that sorted to! Likewise I said that I was trying to bring more attention to the organisation including popular WebPages, with the input of ‘Princess Hotels & Resorts’ Once again sorry for the sudden outburst of feedback in my last message/E-mail , I would gracefully appreciate any help offered in this campaign project. If my attempt on Wikipedia has failed. And I/we are not getting any ware. I will pass this onto someone with more skill then me.

Yours

Cameron Domingo.

Have you uploaded the image here that you are trying to insert into the article? BigDunc^Talk 21:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you once again. I have given up hope on this website! ‘lol ‘and sorry I have lost my formality to. I think this campaign on Wiki is too complicated for me to be using right now. Just some back ground for you. I live in the United Kingdom trying for do work for Plácido Domingo my uncles empire as you might say. ‘lol’ there are also formal employees at Princess Resorts (HQ) doing the same sort of job as me but in a larger scale. I might try again later. But still be too complicated, the link you sent me in your last message is what i think I’m going wring with, (Wikimedia Commons) eaven more compacted to use! Its all about licensees! I have been told not to get into that era! Ill think ill leave it for now. Thank you. Cameron —Preceding unsigned comment added by CamM321 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright is a complicated area is true, you need to ensure that the image is free for use on this site. BigDunc^Talk 21:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

All-Ireland article

Am I reading Domer's proposal correctly? He's suggesting we merge the Republic of Ireland article into the proposed 'All-Ireland' article? GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And what do you propose will happen to ROI? BigDunc^Talk 08:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Leave RoI to exist as Ireland (state). GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Domer not proposing something similar but with a different name instead of Ireland (State) just have Ireland with links to relevant articles. BigDunc^Talk 19:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me as though Domer wants to merge the content of RoI to the proposed article & then delete the RoI article. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your main reason for opposing an article about Ireland that deals with everything on one page with links to say Northern Ireland like the way the China article is. BigDunc^Talk 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've no problem with such an Ireland article, as long as an Ireland (state) & Ireland (island) articles exists simulatenously. Along with the China article, there's the People's Republic of China & Republic of China articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Signature on Talk:September 11 attacks

I hope you don’t mind; you forgot to sign a comment you made here and I pasted your signature on. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem thanks. BigDunc^Talk 08:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Dunc, thank you for formatting my refs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, where do you come across all these strange ladies? :-) BigDunc^Talk 10:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dunc, people have described me as being a strange lady, however, I have never had anyone's nose cut off! I swear!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and please delete account.

Hi yes thanks for that, not sure what happened there. Could you please arrange to delete my account JohnnyTurk888 as soon as possible, that's why I was posting on that person's page. The account has been blocked for a month and I no longer wish to participate here. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.216.77 (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is your account then just add {{db-userreq}} to the userpage and it will get deleted. BigDunc^Talk 11:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it is my own account. I put the request on the talk page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.216.77 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. BigDunc^Talk 11:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Established Editors

Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A9 Tag

Just a heads up that I redirected Here We Go Again (song) to Demi Lovato. Speedy tag A9 did not apply in this case, as the artist did have a page. Cheers. TNXMan 16:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem thanks should have done that in the first place. BigDunc^Talk 16:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Dirty Protest

I respect your wish to edit, but if you feel you have to again, rather than reinstate the previous, could you please improve the article by mentioning that dirty protests are a current form of prisoner revolt and not just an historical Irish Republican phenomena?

As per http://pso.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/pso1700/DIRTY%20PROTESTS.htm

The term also means to throw shit in general, whether by adults or children.

Thanks TT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tooltucker (talk • contribs)

---

Brian Keenan

Keep an eye on this please mo chara, details are here. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Socks

Actually I've just spotted some dirty socks that I'll write up a sockpuppet investigations report for later. It'll be quite amusing considering the editor has got in hot water for it before and there's a really, really, really incriminating diff with regards to the intent behind it. Henry Lee Lucas had what you might call an "interesting way" of dealing with similar situations ;) 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I had noticed a little activity alright in the sock department. BigDunc^Talk 17:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

Thanks for heads up. Appreciate the personal touch. RashersTierney (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah come on!

Would ya ever leave De Unionist's flag on De Unionist's User Page? Yer only going to cause shizzle. Sarah777 (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fo' shizzle my nizzle. :) BigDunc^Talk 08:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair play! well dizzled!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland project

The other moderator is listed on the project page under the membership section. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be three? Only one is active? Is Remedy#1 still valid? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the other named moderator who has made I think 14 edits to the whole process. As of yet they haven't answered my question. BigDunc^Talk 20:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Shame

It looks like I missed The Maiden City's latest sockpuppet going insane. O Fenian (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Like cream the sectarian bile always rises and spurts from their mouths. BigDunc 19:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian 3RR block

Thanks for the alert. I commented to the blocking admin, here. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Snörkel

There are zero Google hits for the band, its members, their music or their record company. It's a hoax. I did do the research. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted under the A7 notability of the band, which I added, chances are it was a hoax. BigDunc 20:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I invite you to assist with the expansion and sourcing of this article in the hopes that it might go live in a day or two: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/National Fibromyalgia Association. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Font

Thanks for the heads up. I use Firefox, but it looks like all the other text with my browser? Does it look too small on yours or something? - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Not small it looks blurred, I use Opera but I checked it with the others and the only one I could read was with IE. BigDunc 19:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Grandmaster Flowers

Flowers was a very early figure in the scene, but it is difficult to assert notability due to the lack of reliable sources and coverage. -Binary TSO ^??? 10:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind. I fixed it. -Binary TSO ^??? 10:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ireland collaboration

Be not afraid. If I'm the lone dissenting voice of the 'merge' proposal? then the proposal will be passed. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I see now, that was just an exampler by Domer (not a proposal). PS: Thanks for not 'deleting' my posts. It shows class & patients on your part. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll go along with your suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a sprawling mess with entreched POV, collaboration is a misnomer IMO. You have editors talking at each other instead of trying to work together, ownership issues and after yesterday when 2 editors who are on wiki about 3 months between them starting polls. It is getting pythonesque with polls about polls. BigDunc 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, 'tis a mess for sure. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I love Monty Python, Big Dunc. ;> I can understand people thinking, Hey, who does this guy (me) think he is starting a poll when he's wet behind the ears on wikipedia. You should also understand that whether a person is new or not they generally don't come here as newborn uneducated children. I may not be an expert on wikipedia but I did try and read up on some of the previous discussions on the topic. I also tried to bring something constructive to the table when I took part in the discussion. If I did not accomplish that then it's all down to me, but it wasn't for the lack of trying. Perhaps in a years time I shall return to these types of discussions, and you never know, we may have a debate on something and you'll think I am at least trying to be constructive, and not just wet behind the ears. :) All the best. Coll Mac (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed this comment, in fact I thought your input to the colaboration was some of the most cconstructive that the process seen and I am saddened to see that you have now retired from the project, hopefully it will be short lived and you will be back sooner rather than later. BigDunc 23:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C.

I've put the link for Liverpool F.C. back on the article for Harold Dingwall Bateson, but have wikilinked it to Liverpool St Helens F.C. Livepool F.C. were a rugby team formed before the more famous association team. It used to happen quite a bit Blackheath F.C., Richmond F.C. all were rugby teams. Hope that helps. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up great work, thats why I asked the project not being an egg chaser fan myself ;) BigDunc 22:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I've heard, from what I remember you're a keen fan of garrison games ;) 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

William Greer

Keep an eye on this please, the IP editor is back. Ta. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I am an art historian doing my Ph D; a well-merited journalist since 23 years, and a senior producer and editor of Swedish Television Cultural News. I discovered a gap in the information on Wikipedia, concerning a well-known artist and jazz-musician by the name of José Luis Liard, who, among other things, have performed on television in South America and Sweden, and he has also made the biggest mural paintings ever made in Sweden. He is also famous for his artistic and social work together with young graffiti-painters in troubled city surburbs. The signature "BigDunc" has for some reason decided that this article should be considered as promotional spam. For whom, or what? I might ask.

I am a professional scholar trying to contribute to the body of science on Wikipedia, adding a contemporary artist not yet added. Any information concerning a presently living person could of course be considered as a sign-post for that person. The key question should therefore be: Is this person represented before in some public area/space? Yes. Has this person been recognized by the media for his work? Yes. Has this person published his work to a wider audience? Yes. Does this person have an international career? Yes.

I would like to have some kind of explanation why the work that I have done, writing this article for no commercial benefit whatsoever, should be deleted by some complete stranger who has not given any valid reason for this action. I consider this a sabotage of the free exchange of information on Wikipedia.

Monica Anjefelt, art historian, journalist, television producer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moa1 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If the article you are talking about was deleted then it obviusly didn't meet the criteria set for articles. I don't know who deleted the article and i'm sure the admin who deleted it stated a valid reason for its deletion. BigDunc 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Historical populations template

Hi Dunc, can you cast a cold eye over this issue please. It just got new legs. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 10:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Stubot123

Thanks for your submission at the UAA noticeboard. As you correctly noted, the name is currently under discussion on the user's talk page. You may have missed them, but the listing guidelines found at the top of the WP:UAA page explained that names placed under discussion are moved to the holding pen. In fact, Stubot123 is listed there under July 31st, and thus it's being handled. We typically allow a few days or so for the user to respond. Sometimes if they continue to edit and ignore the concern the issue can be immediately re-addressed at the request for comment on usernames noticeboard. Again, all of this information is summarised at the top of WP:UAA, so please ensure familiarity with the listing guidelines when posting in the future. Thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks didn't know about the holding pen thats why I said as far as I was aware. BigDunc 16:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries mate. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of vote

Hi BigDunc. I actually thought of doing the same thing. I don't think you should do it as it would only be shooting yourself in the foot. Jack forbes (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack this badgering has been going on months it is the reason I stopped contributing to the collaberation page, you just have to look at the talk page John k makes a statement on why we should vote a certain way and Sarah answers with a counter arguement then look at the replies and intimidation she gets. Crys of canvassing and now she is intimidating editors it is BS. BigDunc 22:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jumpers, the Poll is just 2 days old & already 3 vote withdrawls. At this rate, I'll be the only vote cast by September 13. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It'll all (hopefully) come out in the wash. I couldn't in all honesty agree with the profiling as I would have been seen as a hypocrite. There was though a big difference which Masem didn't pick up on when I gave him the Macedonia example. The editor in question at Macedonia put names along with their profile. Sarah did no such thing, so who is she intimidating. Now, if their were no sanctions levied at him, what the heck is happening with Sarah. That's what is really annoying me. I did honestly sit here for five minutes wondering whether I should remove my vote, then I saw you doing it. It's the wrong thing Dunc. There will be those who are delighted you have done so. Jack forbes (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty I am not too concerned about the profiling as I really don't thing it makes a blind bit of difference to the poll but it is the constant attacks from the usual editors that are driving me mad and it goes unchecked, ah well I should be used to it now I will reconsider when this settles down thanks for your posts. BigDunc 23:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I too was/am considering removing my vote. To be honest I can't see anything fundamentally wrong with profiling per say, and can't see why it would intimidate a worthy voter. I have been called everything from an Irish nationalist, whatever that means, to a pov-pusher, it's part of this course. But when the shoe is on the other foot, there is a big storm. See how it goes! Tfz 10:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I have been accused of it all in my time here I have had checkusers done 2 or 3, can't remember I have been called a POV pusher a Provo and once even called a traitor by some rabid republican you can't win really. But I inserted my vote again even though I have absolutly no faith in the poll as yesterdays episode proved. It is very probable that I will just remove the vote if this intimidation and badgering continues. BigDunc 11:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been called an orangeman, provo, and BigDun a number of times. I don't know which was worse LOL.I'd not give my support to such a POV/Biased process. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My fellow countrymen make me despair at times, most of them are the very worst examples of Englishmen. And let's face it, they are up against some pretty stiff opposition! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In a lighter vein, “When you live among wolves you must howl like a wolf,” Lenin.;) Tfz 13:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Y'know - there will be no "friends" left on IrlProj when all this is over. Pity. What really gets my goat, big time, is "Irish" editors who report other IrlProj to the "authorities". With a view to censoring, blocking and banning. That is damn hard to forgive; even when whatever the row was ends. Sarah777 (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In Irish history that's called felon setting!--Domer48_'fenian' 14:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever reported a fellow Irish editor to the "authorities", Domer? Mooretwin (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Today I'd just call it being a p***k. Sarah777 (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you've re-added your vote. Ya gotta be tough in the Wiki neighbohood. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a very flawed poll, it was supposed to be advertised on all the Euro country projects, and not just in the UK. Masem didn't deliver what he said he would, and spoiled votes do reckon too. ArbCom should strike out the outrageous farce. Tfz 01:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Masem made very clear before the vote started that it would only be mentioned on European projects like the EU / Europe and country projects. I was concerned when i saw Masems original comment which did seem like it was supporting adertising on other European country projects, but that was cleared up before the vote started and agreed to. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have differences, or the paragraph? Tfz 01:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes just found it [1] from the 7th of July BritishWatcher (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good, that's the one I was talking about. Tfz 01:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Kilmore Rec.

Since when has Kilmore Rec. F.C. been on your watchlist? Mooretwin (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't but I check this why? BigDunc 14:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And how did that page bring you to Kilmore Rec. today and Downshire Y.M. on 27th July? Mooretwin (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? BigDunc 14:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. That's why I'm asking. I fail to see how that page would have taken you to either of those articles on the given dates, which just happened to coincide with edits made by me. Pure coincidence?Mooretwin (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a funny world. BigDunc 14:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Why not just be honest? We both know how you arrived at the articles. Should I be flattered? Mooretwin (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That you blatantly leave wrong information on articles, what ever floats your boat. BigDunc 16:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Flattered that you follow me around. Mooretwin (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been doing that yourself since you came here. BigDunc 21:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You admit it, then? Mooretwin (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Show me yours and i'll show you mine lol BigDunc 21:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you around. Mooretwin (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger Casement

Thank you for pointing me to the criteria for describing someone as an LGBT person. However I must now ask you which historians say Casement was not homosexual? 86.161.16.132 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

@User :86.161.16.132 -- Winston Churchill and Isaac Newton would fall into the same historical debate area, it might be a good idea to see how those articles are dealt with. Tfz 18:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to Churchill or Newton being LGBT! I think I know Newton did not marry but Churchill did (and had a gay secretary Edward Marsh) 86.161.16.132 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is covered here it is alleged that the diaries were part of a smear campaign, IMO they are probably not part of a smear campaign but others disagree. BigDunc 19:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But that is about the diaries' authenticity not about whether he was a homosexual. And the criteria for LGBT people exclusion is if 'historians' dispute the designation. There is no mention of historians so doing in the article.86.161.16.132 (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The only evidence of his alleged homosexuality comes from the diaries. I would not waste your time feeding trolls BigDunc. O Fenian (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As O Fenian says if the only reason people believe that he was homosexual are the diaries and they are disputed, then it follows that his sexuality is disputed. BigDunc 20:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian is wrong if you look at some of the books on Casement. But the point remains the test is 'historians' which you do not answer.86.143.63.172 (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying, are you saying you have a book which proves his sexuality without mention of the diaries? BigDunc 22:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mention of the diaries in a book is irrelevant to the rules of the test, to which you drew my attention, as to whether historians dispute his homosexuality. For that there are no attributions therefore Casement meets the test and his name can surely be added again. 86.147.53.235 (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ROI eligibility

You have to be an ROI citizen to be eligible for ROI. Not everyone born in NI is an ROI citizen, notwithstanding that they are entitled to be. Mooretwin (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly and can you provide a reliable source that says none of the palyers are. BigDunc 21:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We can't assume that they are. Therefore you need a RS to show that they are. Mooretwin (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

??????? BigDunc 21:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The above response makes no sense. What don't you understand? Mooretwin (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What you said We can't assume that they are. Therefore you need a RS to show that they are. BigDunc 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And why don't you understand what I said? Which part is confusing you? Mooretwin (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes

Regarding the poll, no hard feelings just making a point. F looks poised to win, so more votes excluding it would be better than less. Masem can abdicate responsibility for following rules in favor of allowing strikes, that's his call. I'm not going to push the point further. Ireland is the correct title, not enough neutral parties understand the silliness of keeping ROI, I'm afraid. Here's to making the reasons for a change clearer and spreading the word down the road. Sswonk (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly why I opposed the poll all along, wiki is not a democracy but when you have a very vocal bunch of British and West Brit editors who harrass and badger any editor who is against the status qou, who refused to take part (by obstructing) in any consensus building in the hope of forcing a poll in which they knew they had force of numbers and the ignorance of others it just shows the futillity of this poll. BigDunc 13:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If editos against Option-F, keep 'dropping out'? then yes, the status quo will be adopted in September. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not the editors in favour of F who have resorted to name-calling and invective. And I don't see the likes of Evertype being harassed and badgered. Unless of course you define badgering as pointing out blatant misinformation (even down to miscounting numbers), that is. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dunc, don't call people from 'Ireland' West Brits if you ever want to look as if you are not part of the bullying POV contingent. And presumably after your comments above you'll be able to point out exactly where in the discussion phase certain ardent POV editors were contributing in good faith to forestall a poll, as many of them certainly only appeared to turn up when a poll was inevitable. That's how it looked to me. After the arbcom case, I dropped out early in the discussion phase after making many good faith policy based proposals, when it became clear that the same disruptive and tendentious bullshit from both camps was not being properly moderated (somebody somewhere evidently confused the words Moderators and Mediator). I notice many other neutrals also dipped in, supported sensible options, only to leave in the face of the same old shit aswell. Thus, like it or not, a poll is what we have ended up with. MickMacNee (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

User:DarthJoeyJoJo

One can almost feel sorry fro him as he was egged on to do it by a canvasser.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just seen that. BigDunc 14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong place

Further to your reply here, you may wish to move your response to where the discussion is actually happening - which is on the WIKIIreland Project page. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate comment

While I appreciate your disagreement with the 2 blocks you verbalized on ANI, comments such as this are not constructive whatsoever. We have a policy called WP:AGF here. You know better. Toddst1 (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is very hard to assume any faith let alone good with your actions on this matter. BigDunc 21:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Also by the way it is not policy it is a guideline. BigDunc 21:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

PIRA

I become very concerned when IPs/new editors open up such sensative topics. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP has added gems like this, this and their Pièce de résistance this gem. You will notice that the IP is Cromwellian Conquest. BigDunc 18:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the IP/editor needs some time out. He/she's releasing alot of frustrations & it's only going to heat things up. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Belated response

Hello Dunc. I just wanted to apologize for not responding to your request for assistance regarding Domer's block last week. It was not a case of indifference, it was simply that your email reached me as I was traveling, and I did not have email access until my return home this weekend.

I feel somewhat responsible for the whole debacle, because Nja247 had raised the sockpuppetry issue with me, also be email. It seemed extremely unlikely to me that Domer would be operating sockpuppets, but I was unable to pass that information on before the subsequent request spiraled into anger, in turn resulting in blocks. This is part of the reason that I have bowed out of most administrative duties on Wikipedia - I simply can't make the commitment that is required to deal with fast moving developments at the moment. I'm currently in the process of co-ordinating a transcontinental move, perhaps once that is done I will find more time to contribute in that way. Rockpocket 02:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Irish Volunteers

Hi BigDunc, I see you've commented previously at Irish Volunteers, and there's a thread there which could use more input. It's Talk:Irish Volunteers#First Volunteers meeting. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 21:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers

One learns something new every day. Tfz, used to be PurpleArrow. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I knew that how did you find out have been busy last few days. BigDunc 12:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it was at an ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Lá breá, thoroughly sibylline in most of his pronouncements, and not a lot of people know that! ;) Tfz

Michael Collins

Hi BigDunc, In May/June 2009, an anon editor added information on Michael Collins' distant ancestors in the 12th century. After a discussion on the talk page, this info was removed. The editor is back, now registered as User:DinDraithou and is adding the same information again. As you commented on this issue before, I'm informing you of the current debate on Michael Collins' talk page. Snappy (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

NI categories

Hi, I see you removed "disputed territories" and "European countries" from the Northern Ireland article. Does that mean you think they should be removed from Category:Northern Ireland as well? (I can understand the first one, but the other UK constituents are in Category:European countries, so it seems logical that NI should be there as well.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't you who removed the disputed territories one.--Kotniski (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Would you mind explaining this edit? Mooretwin (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: blocked

With all due respect, you didn't tell me anything before I got blocked The C of E (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I did I said it in the edit summary here. BigDunc 12:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, but it was then 5 minites later I was blocked (now I'm not blaming you for that, it was my own fault) it wasn't left on my user page and I was offline at the time so i knew nothing of this The C of E (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok maybe I should have said it on your talk page. BigDunc 19:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Image up for deletion

Can you check this out and advise. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you get a chance?

Could you update the watchlist to compensate for the recent page moves? Ta. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

New article

Hi BigDunc. I have just created a new article: Kevin McGrady which might be of interest to you, seeing as you're part of the Irish Republican project. I think articles should be done on other supergrasses such as Christopher Black and Joe Bennett.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the article, Dunc. It looks much better now, especially with the links you provided.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess congrats are in order?

Nice job getting your Bronze Swimming Certificate ;) 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah at last, starting on an M.Sc. now. BigDunc 13:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

I suggest you self revert your revert on British Isles, I'm sure you noticed the big edit notice at the top of the page.. "Due to a long history of edit warring, this article is temporarily under an editing restriction. Do not revert or undo another editor's revert. If you do so, you may be blocked from editing. Instead, follow the bold-revert-discuss process and discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Once a consensus has been reached on the issue, normal editing may resume. Thank you." If you revert yourself within the next few mins I won't take this matter further. Jeni ^(talk) 16:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the big edit notice at the top of the page all I saw was your silly edit summary were you claim that an admin was a disruptive user this kind of edit summary makes volatile situations worse and are far from helpful, I will revert as this is a collaborative process and not because of your threats. I have noticed a couple of inflammatory comments from you lately and frankly I expected more. BigDunc 16:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I laughed

Apparently reverting six times without replying to the last talk page post is not edit warring, and he has the brass neck to accuse you of avoiding discussion LMFAO. O Fenian (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I know you have to laugh sometimes :) BigDunc 17:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

1RR on British Isles

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Canterbury Tail talk 20:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason}}

Will this block be on Dun's block log now? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is on his log yes, however also is the reason for the unblock. Canterbury Tail talk 21:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am still blocked. BigDunc 21:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, I do appreciate it. You know it was only done as that is what needed done at the time. Canterbury Tail talk 23:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Chromenano

Can you please give an update about what the deal is with the username issue at User talk:Chromenano? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know what you are talking about. BigDunc 16:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You left a message on his talk page a while back, about his username, see User_talk:Chromenano#Your_Username. Cirt (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I remember this user was called something like google chrome and it wasn't long after the launch of Google Chrome so I flagged it as a possible promotional name. BigDunc 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay well I removed the username concern category, if that's okay with you. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No problems at all. BigDunc 17:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned IP Comment

Sorry - hadn't realised issues on edit war - had previously placed discussion piece on discussion page - don't know why, despite this, edits are being reverted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.121.87 (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Sands

Irvine has a counter-source. Conflicting sources tend to make both 'un-reliable', this is a 'grey' area. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, who on God's abandoned earth is Barry Sands?!!!! Are you perchance talking about Bobby Sands?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Err Yeah, who was that 'Barry Sands' guy? GoodDay (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Things are settled now. GoodDay (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Davy Payne

Hi Dunc, when you get the chance would you please have a look at my latest article, Davy Payne. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million for your corrections. I agree that kill sounds better than murder. Also you were right to credit Taylor, that was an oversight on my part. I did add that the gang's name was the Ulster Freedom Fighters as they were the offshoot of the UDA, using the name so as not to get the UDA outlawed. BTW, should I say wing or offshoot when describing the UFF?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I made more corrections to the article. Payne was driving the scout car when he was arrested; his car did not contain any weapons, so I altered the article to reflect that fact. I hope it looks OK now--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Fynire

It's seems the Troubles related articles, may have an IP Sockpuppet Master around. It appears he's able to IP hop when his previous IP is blocked. Recommend a big time Checkuser. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree I said as much 5 days ago at ANI but no one seems to have bothered, it appears this editor is blaming everyone including BT for their vandalism, funny though they have the same IP until it gets blocked then magically BT change the IP address for them. BigDunc 17:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Irvine fellow 'seems' to be trying to bait Irish editors. Ain't he supposed to banned for 'sockpuppetry'? GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Again agree but admins don't seem to care, now not being paranoid or anything but if it was an Irish editor doing that you would have a queue of admins ready with the block button. BigDunc 17:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am an Irish editor. Irvine22 (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My eyebrows are perked. Socking is blasphemist, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

John Francis Green

Dunc, I just created a new article on John Francis Green. If you spot any errors I'd appreciate it if you could correct them, thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Irish Volunteers Edit

Just wondering why my edit on the article was deleted. Thanks --79.69.149.123 (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the text you added to the infobox as you added it to the Previous section and the Irish Vol weren't previously the Gaelic League, Ancient Order of Hibernians, Sinn Féin and Irish Republican Brotherhood. Also as a matter of fact the text didn't even appear in the infobox. BigDunc 18:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP

I don't want to get sucked into an edit war with this guy, but he's making a dog's dinner of Black and Tans, as you have already seen, and has started the same caper at Irish Bulletin. Can you take a look. I don't have the patience anymore. RashersTierney (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a sock to me. First edit is the day Irvine22 must have realised that a ban was about to hit, but I am not sure if that is enough for a checkusr --Snowded ^TALK 04:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree very possible a sock any admins watching could you please have a word with the IP. BigDunc 08:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is more likely to be a new IP of 99.142.8.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) based on the Polanski editing I think? O Fenian (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have informed the blocking admin here BigDunc 09:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The old block has expired officially so there is no block evasion, but it should have some bearing on their current editing I think? O Fenian (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My main gripe is the selective use of bad sources by this ed. Cottrell is a polemicist, not a historian, as is evident from his incautious, even wild assertions. As a serving officer in the British Army, he must be judged in that context when writing on such a controversial issue as the Black and Tans. I also intend a re-write on the Irish Bulletin article, primarily based on Ian Kenneally's The Paper Wall, which is the most authoritative general source for newspapers of the period. Any hands on support would be appreciated. And thanks for replies. RashersTierney (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And the train-wreck rolls on...RashersTierney (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Careful how you go now! This guy is def. a troll. RashersTierney (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Without a doubt. BigDunc 15:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh. That's not the first thing I think of when I think "Black and Tan" -- do you guys think that should be moved to Black and Tan (drink) to avoid confusion? I don't _think_ this should be moved to a parenthesized title as well... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A welcome distraction - Also knew it, in my younger day, under the moniker 'A Special'. Often wondered if it derived from 'B Specials', continuing the paramilitary theme. RashersTierney (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, just noticing this thread... Has anyone collected a list of all the IPs which you believe are being used by this individual? Thanks, --Elonka 17:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This dynamic IP's masked POV- scroll to 'shouting text' - (posting as User talk:99.142.5.86 - just come to light) should also be noted. Already a respected author has been vilified on the project, ostensibly in the name of neutral 'Scholorship'. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Aubane Historical Society - Not Reliable Source). What a farce! RashersTierney (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

They have also previously been requested to register an account as user User talk:99.142.8.221#Note regarding the various ip sub-masks (99.142.x.x). RashersTierney (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nudge

BigDunc, hi, as I'm sure you're aware, sometimes it can be very difficult to edit articles related to Ireland, because tempers are quick to flare. As such, it is especially important that comments on article talkpages be focused on the articles themselves, and not on other editors. These recent comments of yours appear to be straying away from discussion of the article content.[2][3] As such, could I please ask you to consider deleting or changing your comments? Or at the very minimum, please keep future comments strictly focused on article content. This will help everyone to stay on track.  :) Thanks, --Elonka 17:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree won't happen again. Well with one of them. BigDunc 17:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding!  :) --Elonka 17:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't

add comments in the middle of discussions, out of time. Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why??? BigDunc 20:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

IPs 99

I hope ya have good luck with that one, I've lost all patients with it. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I seen ;) BigDunc 21:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

It's hard work dealing with fuckwits eh? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It sure is and seems to be a lot around. BigDunc 13:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for For violating 1RR restriction at Irish Bulletin. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Elonka 17:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with BigDunc, 1RR is not 0RR. Two edits in a row count as one revert by definition, and since those are the only edits by BigDunc in the last 4 days, I do not see how 1RR has been breached. And even if it had, there was significant dispute about whether 1RR applies at all last time it was taken to WP:AE. O Fenian (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

1RR in the Troubles articles is defined as 1 revert per article per week. And this is not an Arbitration Enforcement action, this is an enforcement of a restriction placed by community consensus. --Elonka 17:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not. You show me a link where it says one revert per week. It was always one revert per day. O Fenian (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Also the last revert I made on this article was on the 21st before Elonka came along to the article. BigDunc 17:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Terms of probation: "Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week". --Elonka 17:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And when was I placed on probation? BigDunc 17:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's the probation. That's the ArbCom enforced remedy, not the community enforced remedy. If you look at the original proposal for the community remedy there's even discussion about what time period 1RR applied to, and it was never clarified. Look at all the AE archives where the community remedy was enforced, you will see they all do it as 1RR being per day. O Fenian (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

For example see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive34#Mooretwin where Tznkai says "The revert restriction refers to any reversions on the same page within 24 hours", which was a thread which BigDunc participated in. O Fenian (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Similarly Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive27#Comment from Rockpocket where SirFozzie says "limiting all editors to 1RR (not 1 RR/week, 1RR/24 hours)", and that was right before the actual 1RR proposal was made in the section below it. There is no way 1RR/week applies across the entire set of articles, as that would be the same as putting every single Troubles editor under the probation, that did not happen. It was always 1RR/day, and that was when it was actually being enforced which it hasn't been for months. O Fenian (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I realize that this is a somewhat confusing situation for those who are unfamiliar with the Troubles ArbCom case, so let me try and clarify:

• There was an ArbCom case in October 2007, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, in which the remedies required that editors first be placed on probation, and then limited to 1RR, one revert per article per week.
• The remedies of the case were then extended in October 2008, by community discussion[4] to include all articles related to the Troubles, with blocks of 1 week for even the first offense, to be extended to 1 month, and then discuss ban options after that.

BigDunc has already been blocked for edit-warring in this topic area,[5] so it is clear that he is aware of the case, and the restrictions, and that Irish Bulletin was under increased monitoring.

Now, having said that, I would be open to lifting the block, if BigDunc would voluntarily agree to avoid all reverting in this topic area for the next week. --Elonka 18:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another bad block on Dunc. There was no violating 1RR restriction, Dunc is not on any probation and there was no edit war! In addition to all that, been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week is just nonsense! This block should have been overturned already and the blocking Admin told to cop onto themselves. Having made a bad block, trying to get Dunc to give an undertaking is wrong. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree the block should be lifted per my comments above, because 1RR (when it was being enforced) was never 1RR/week, that was only for editors on probation not for every single Troubles editor. 1RR/day was mentioned at the time of the proposal and in subsequent enforcement requests, 1RR/week has never been written down anywhere for the community remedy. O Fenian (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As one of the few uninvolved admins, I don't want any part of the Troubles. I think it's a bad block, as 1RR/week appears only to apply if the editor is specifically informed that he's on probation; the default 1RR condition being 1RR/day. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd thought it was 1 revert per day too, initially, but then my post was challenged, so I crossed out the "once per day" part, and no one seemed to have trouble with that. (will have diffs in a moment) --Elonka 18:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the blocking Admin is refusing to lift the bad block unless Dunc offers some justification for the block, I've made a request at WP:ANI to have this addressed. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And now I'm sure. Remedy 3.2 of the RfAr specifies that probation must all be noted in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations. Unless Dunc's probation was removed from the log, he isn't on probation, so is not subject to that 1RR/week restriction. If there's another 1RR/week restriction, I would ask the blocking admin to find it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur Rubin's interpretation of the Arbcom remedy: I'm not sure whether the community increased it later to match Elonka's interpretation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that this comment necessitated the striking of 1RR per day. There is no way the community effectively decided that every single Troubles editor was on the probation remedy, which is what a 1RR/week community restriction would effectively entail. 1RR/day was in effect, but hasn't been for months to be honest. O Fenian (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree, unfortunately. If BigDunc were formally placed under probation (a decision on which I have no opinion), then the 1RR/Week would apply. He was not added to the AE list (which does include editors on probation), and had a good faith rationale to believe that he was able to safely revert once per day (per Tzinkai, here). He also did not appear to be gaming that restriction (Reverting the same thing on consecutive days, for example). Yes, it's never a good idea to revert anything on an article falling under WP:ARBCOM/TROUBLES, but I don't believe this is a sound block, unless I'm missing something. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c *3) I'll go ahead and lift the block, since there are good faith concerns about the definition of 1RR. Let's continue this discussion at ANI? --Elonka 18:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, Elonka. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am still blocked. BigDunc 19:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably an autoblock. Can you please copy/paste the message you get, so I can find it and try to clear it? --Elonka 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Autoblock dated 17:58 UTC removed. Try it again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Arthur. BigDunc 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism on Userpage

WikiThanks

Hi BigDunc. I just want to thank you for reverting the vandalism on my Userpage! I really appreciate it. Kind regards, LouriePieterse 06:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. BigDunc 12:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I've semi-protected your talk page for a bit until the kiddies find something else to do. Acroterion _(talk) 19:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats great thanks I had made a request for it to get PP. BigDunc 19:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the RFPP - I'd just noticed it because you and Snigbrook were on my watchlist. I've closed it at RFPP. Acroterion _(talk) 19:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks again. BigDunc 19:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was semi-protected? GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)