User talk:BigDunc/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Feel free to help out on any topic!

The Irish Republicanism WikiProject is a collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics.

(For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects).

--Vintagekits 21:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Helpme

Hey BigDunc, what do you need help with? - TwoOars 18:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright Dunc, whats the story, what do you need help with?--Vintagekits 14:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No probs Dunc, if you need a hand with anything just come over and give me a shout. regards. --Vintagekits 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help sorted out what i was trying to do if stuck again is it ok to ask you a question? BigDunc 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

of course, you can ask me on my talk page whenever you want. Question is if I'd want to answer... Just kidding. :P I'll certainly answer if I am around. - TwoOars 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

For the heads up. I do not know what I have done to deserve this level of harassment from him. Brixton Busters 06:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Provisional Irish Republican Army

The reason I reverted that edit was it was badly written.--padraig 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That looks better, it would help if editors read the entire section after inserting text, before saving.--padraig 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Criminals who committed suicide

Why did you remove this cat? It is suitable for those in jail who starved themseleves to death surley? Astrotrain 11:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously they were not murdered by Margaret Thatcher. They were in jail (criminals), starved themselves to death by choice (suicide) hence the category. Astrotrain 12:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Again- please explain. Astrotrain 15:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source to say it was suicide. I can provide a number to say it wasnt. Purely POV dont you see - regards.--Vintagekits 22:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The intent for going on hunger strike was to force 'peacefully' the british goverment to submit on a set of five demands,and not for suicide or suicidal tendencies as astrotrain points out,,calling the hunger strikers criminals is a moot point of view-as the british judical system in the last one hundred years has been world renowned for their kangaroo style court system-the real criminals are the people who gave in to the five demands a short time after the ten men died-...Breen32 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

please note

can you explain to me what you are asking me to note thanks, on Birmingham pub bombings--BigDunc 10:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[1] Heading 15 Aatomic1 10:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

putting up an article for deletion

Hi BigDunc, depends on the article actually. If the article is obvious vandalism or blatant advertisement or any of the other things listed at the speedy deletion criteria page, you can speedy delete it. If you think the article does not belong on wikipedia but does not satisfy the speedy deletion criteria, you can nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. You can find detailed step by step instructions at WP:AFD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. In addition to these two avenues, you can PROD an article if an article does not satisfy the speedy deletion criteria but still is an uncontroversial candidate for deletion. Just be sure to read Wikipedia's deletion policy before you nominate any article for deletion. Double check whether you yourself can improve the article (by adding references, etc). Hope this helps. Do ask me if you have further doubts. - TwoOars 14:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Oh and this might be of use too. - TwoOars 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You should consider yourself very lucky that I haven't blocked you for the above. I'm not going to be very relaxed about further disruption tomorrow. I will be handing out lengthy blocks if the edit warring continues and will not be waiting for 4 reverts before I act. Is this clear? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Vk

Hello Big Dunc. Regarding this edit, have you actually made any attempt to find the threats, before arguing with others and offering support for Vk? I only ask because Alison quoted one just 4 posts above yours, and - if you had read the rest of the page - you would be aware Vk openly admits making them and indeed has apologised for making them in the past. In addition, If that is not sufficient evidence for you, I offered to forward the email from Vk to you, which you appeared to ignore. There is enough agitating going on on Vk's page, muddying the waters with assertions that are just plain misinformed is extremely unhelpful at this stage. Rockpocket 16:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Should be kept on main forum. Rockpocket conveniently forgets about all the prior abuse. He did this on my page too. Thepiper 17:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Vk's talkpage is not a "forum" and I have no idea what "prior abuse" you think I have forgotten, but that doesn't appear to be germane to the point raised abive. The talkpage of an individual is the correct place to discuss an edit of theirs, hence I came here. Rockpocket 17:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Vk's talkpage is not a "forum" and I have no idea what "prior abuse" you think I have forgotten." I already know that's your position on this. Thepiper 17:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Then there there is no further need for you to divert from my question to Dunc. Rockpocket 17:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure Dunc will decide. But why this canvassing. Look at WP:CANVASS---Thepiper 17:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell we exactly how I am convassing per WP:CANVASS? Rockpocket 17:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I never said that VK did not make threats if you read what I posted it was "as far as I am aware" big difference. There seems to be a lot of people "jumping on the grave" of VK pushing there own personal agendas.BigDunc 17:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, I know that. But my point was when you expressed that yesterday, evidence of threats were provided and offered to you. Instead of acknowledging that, or accepting the offer, you continued to deny knowledge of his threats. The fact is Vk did make threats of violence and that is not disputed by anyone (including Vk). Sticking your head in the sand so you can deny awareness is not helpful and adds nothing to the discussion. I agree there are those "jumping on his grave". Its distastful and foolish (considering all they are doing is drawing admin attention to themselves). However, anyone elses poor behaviour is no excuse for Vk making threats of violence. Rockpocket 18:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree no one should make threats against any other editor pointless and silly as it's not like we all live on the same road all they do is make the one making threats look like a fool. All I am trying to point out is that it seems to me there was provacation and maybe VK should have been wiser than to jump at the bait. BigDunc 18:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement (though don't be to sure that we don't "all live on the same road" - how credible threats are have been taken into account). But you have to look at it form the other side of the coin also. Vk is not entirely innocent of provoking others when it suits him either. So while who "started" this is impossible to know, but it doesn't really matter. What is important is that we finish it. Over the last month this has been drummed into Vk and yet his still allowed himself to step over the line and lash out, time and time again. The fact is some people will always try and wind others up. Its the responsibility of each of us to deal with that in an acceptable manner. Vk simply cannot do that. I do have sympathy for him because others know he is the person most likely to blow up and as such have focused their provocation on him. However, Vk has provoked others as much as he has got, so he is not some innocent party in all this. You live by the sword and you die by the sword (metaphorically, of course). Vk has no-one to blame but himself.

So, by all means, if you believe someone else's behaviour warrants ArbCom attention, then make a statement to that extent. But using that to somehow diminish the seriousness of Vk's actions is not going to be successful. Rockpocket 18:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Offer

Herein lies the problem. I can't show you the diffs where Vk made his latest comments for which he was blocked. Because in doing so I would be publicising the personal information of another editor, which is is a blockable offence per WP:HARASS. If you were to find them yourself, however, and ask me if they were the reason Vk was blocked, I would be able to confirm that to you (privately). This isn't a big ask, incidently, because I found them myself, as did various others. The offer I made was actually to forward you the original emails Vk sent me, threatening violence, in case you did not believe the text that I reproduced was actually from him. However, Vk has admitted a number of times that he sent those. But if you would still prefer to see the original text, I can send you them (with Vk's email address blocked out). ALternatively, you could just ask Vk if her sent them, I'm sure he will acknowledge it (noting he was drunk at the time). Rockpocket 18:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Joe Hill

Sorry, my mistake. I should have linked directly to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, where it says:

Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

The youtube video in question appears to be an unauthorized distribution of someone's work, and makes no assertion that the creator is distributing it with any sort of permissions. -Seidenstud 06:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Irish Republican Legitimatism

The article needs some kind of quantification of the current belief in Irish Republican Legitimatism in Ireland. Please look to my reply to your comment in the talk page of the article. I don't think that undoing my contribution without coming up with a counter suggestion is particularly productive. So if you could think of a sentence, (with sources) I would welcome your help. --81.132.246.132 22:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Help please

Removed tag found template and did it myself.BigDunc 11:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Edward O'Brien Irish Republican requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Accounting4Taste 18:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not reverting but including new contents to improve the article. In reference to the word terrorist, now I'm respecting the wikipedia policy what say than you only can refer it to terrorist including who is making it. I don't want to enter in a edit dispute. I only try improve Wikipedia. Adalme

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adalme (talk • contribs) 13:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Links

[2]
Google

There you go. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A bit of an explanation

Hey BigDunc, let me just explain myself a bit better, hopefully you can understand where I'm coming from :)

1) First off, I have no dog in this hunt, so to speak. I am not pro-Unionist, I am not Pro-Republican.. I came into this a few months back when I volunteered to mentor a user (since indefblocked) in the ongoing conflicts. Things are so bad, that about 15-20 editors on both sides are in an Arbitration case.

2) What I'm trying to do is KEEP edit wars from breaking out. Three such edit wars have had their pages protected (Orange Institution is one of them).

3) I was just trying to let you know that to avoid edit wars (and further bad feeling), that we need to make it as bulletproof as possible (IE, cite everything properly and avoid weasel words as much as possible.) I was trying to rein in your frustration (the all sides are saying it, but we can't say it on WP? comment)

Anyway, end of the work day. Time to go home! Have a good one! SirFozzie 21:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As quick as I can make it... ;) That is a REAAAAAL thorny issue, there is a Mediation Cabal case open for this issue, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Northern_Ireland_flag_usage. SirFozzie 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up.

)I am breaking a Wiki-Health Break for this, so I'm already in a bad mood, so if I sound a bit disgruntled, that's why) I notice a new account has shown up on Orange Institution and while there's nothing I can do to prove it, it seems rather interesting that they've picked up a certain viewpoint. I've had people from both sides say, yes, it's suspicious. I'm not going to say Yes or No, to the suspicions, but if the account DOES happen to be related to anyone in the current conflict (meat OR Sock), it would be the worst possible thing that you could do in this whole thing. Especially since there is a motion in the ArbCom case to checkuser everybody. Do you understand me? SirFozzie 18:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

ETA

Can you explain your edits please? Your edit summaries are not helpful. Why did you direct me to Talk:ETA when my edits have nothing to do with the issues currently being discussed there?

Lapsed Pacifist 09:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Branding ETA or the Spanish state as terrorist would be POV, as terrorist is a subjective judgment. Unlike what you wrote on my talk page, I haven't done this. Branding either as violent is not the same at all, as both have plainly acted violently. I think you know this. You want a reference that the state has used violence? Do you think the Spanish police and military just run away when ETA come along? What do you think they're for? Unlike what you wrote on my talk page, I haven't changed the structure of the article at all, far from it. If you're going to leave comments on my talk page, try and make them more accurate.

Lapsed Pacifist 15:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dunc, I don't agree my edit was subjective. If a group of people act violently in pursuit of a political end, that's political violence. This applies whether they're police, soldiers or paramilitaries. The maintenance of the present borders of the Spanish state is a political goal of that state. Therefore any violence they employ to that end is political violence. Their security forces don't carry sticks and guns for show.

Lapsed Pacifist 11:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you as I said many states carry out acts of terrorisim USA prime example but as this is an encyclopedia you would need to reference your claim that Spain carries out these acts. I have no doubt they do personaly. BigDunc 11:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Number 57's RfA

Hi there - per the post on my talk page, I wouldn't use the word fabrication, but I'm a bit confused as to why you and Domer opposed the RfA, when the version that Number_57 suggested (i.e. take all the secondary flags out) was actually what we eventually agreed to! ELIMINATORJR 10:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

See my reply on your talk page. BigDunc 10:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If your good luck wish was sincere, then I thank you for it, and hope that we can put our squabble behind us. In case you were wondering about my views on NI - I do not support either side - if Unionists want to be part of the UK and Republicans want to be part of the ROI, then the best solution is for NI to be an independent state guaranteed never to join either the UK or ROI - better for both sides to be unhappy than for one to get its way! Number 5 7 10:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It was sincere and again best of luck. BigDunc 10:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi BigDunc. Thanks for your congratulations, and if you need help, call me :) Number 5 7 22:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey no name..Ireland is Ireland and england is england..too much blood spilt to take such a high and mighty view on the whole lets make ulster a country of its own...Ireland is Ireland..Politics aside..Ireland cannot be part of the country of england..their is an ocean in between..claims like this are war like..war is over..the claim must be over too...Breen32 23:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing

I sometimes find myself without internet access over weekends. This weekend is one such instance.Traditional unionist 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Matrix

Hi BigDunc. I had a go at it using <font size>, but it doesn't seem to work inside the <math> formula. I'm not sure how else to approach the problem, but hopefully someone will reply on the talk page. Number 5 7 09:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that.--BigDunc 09:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Orange Institution

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Orange Institution. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Traditional unionist will not provide sources for his claims I have had this with him before on this article were he would not provide sources but just objected to every solution that was tabled. BigDunc 14:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I provided sources, you just refused to acknowledge themTraditional unionist 14:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this all the sources you provided when asked here BigDunc 14:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not.Traditional unionist 14:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like BHG got here before I did. However, you're at your limit on reversions on that article. Right now, it looks like TU and OHiH are working constructively, with both editors providing cites. Please try to work with them or risk being blocked - Alison ^❤ 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to school

I rather think Dunc [3] it is a case of the headmistress and the senior prefect. Giano 17:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Beginning to look that way Giano --BigDunc 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa!

Hello Big Dunc,

No, I'm not trying to wind anyone up, so please, if I offended you, accept my apologies. My problem with the article is the title, that's all, not the content or really anything else. I was just hoping that laying things out fair and square might clarify things. Enjoy the rest of the weekend, Neale Monks 19:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't wind me up in the slightest but some subject matter is not black and white and this is one of them. BigDunc 19:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag Mediation

Hi- my reading of the mediation statement is that Padraig is to represent the opposition to the Northern Ireland flag. I think it better you put points to his talkpage for him to speak for you. I think that is how it is supposed to work? Astrotrain 21:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem will do. BigDunc 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect whilst Astrotrain and myself are representing the two sides of this debate, the mediator said in reply to a question from Bio that other editors listed as being involved in the mediation could make comments.--Padraig 22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I a listed party? BigDunc 22:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea was that one person would 'sum-up' the views of one 'camp'. If more than that become routinely involved it will result it it being rather one-sided. I only requested permission to add something if something was said by my representative that was not in line with my views. Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Charges of Terrorism

Hello BigDunc. Regarding this edit, are you familiar with the extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Proposed solution to categorising those imprisoned during The Troubles and the further links therein? It appears from the article that Doherty was convicted on scheduled terrorist charges (which was why he was in the Maze in the first place), therefore the category is appropriate. Do you have information that this is incorrect, was it simple criminal charges he was convicted of? If so, he can simply be placed in Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict instead. Let me know if this is the case, otherwise I will revert. Rockpocket 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a misleading cat should it not be something like charged with terrorist offences instead of charged with terrorism he did not stand before the judge charged with terrorism. BigDunc 19:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that the language gets unwieldy. This naming convention has been discussed for months and was agreed upon by most of the editors involved. If you think the cat should be renamed, then by all means propose that at the appropriate place (WP:CfD), but the cat is appropriate for Doherty, so i'm going to add it back. Rockpocket 20:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cahill

This clears it up a bit. Despite the various theories about why, the IRA claimed responsbility. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

List of folk metal bands

I (rather hastily) reverted your edit with a (rather unkind) message; I apologise for how snippy it sounded. What I meant to say was that the flag graphic should not have just been taken away but replaced with the correct graphic. They are from NI in any case so it only needs the correct flag if that won't work. Sorry 'bout that! JRDarby (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ please see this. There is no flag of Northern Ireland the Ulster Banner is a defunct flag. BigDunc (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that!

Thanks for that on the Kevin Barry Article. One minute they want quotation marks and the next they don't. They say I have to attribute the comment to an author, and then you get told, they don't care what the author says? Make you wonder sometimes? Thanks again, --Domer48 (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what they say your damned if you do and your damned if you don't so dont let them grind you down :) BigDunc (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This section courtesy blanked.

Bad revert

I noticed this. Unless you think 'who's' is better than 'whose', your edit restored an error to the article. Per Help:Reverting, reverting should be used with great care. Please fix the error and be more careful in future. Thanks, --John (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed spelling. BigDunc (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, this is one of the problems with blind reverting. In future, try to make a compromise edit rather than just reverting. It is better for all sorts of reasons. --John (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a blind revert I missed one spelling mistake and who's and whose im sure is a common mistake made by many editors. BigDunc (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You'd wanna ease off with the acquisation John! The policies about good faith and crystal ball spring to mind.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunc, we all make mistakes and thanks for fixing yours. --John (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

the mistake was yours for accusing him of blind reverting (usual POV when it come to durty Irish) - nice of you to apologies - I am sure we wont hold our breath for it.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Easter Rising

If you have a problem with my edits discuss it on the talk page (and by discuss I don't mean just post irrelevant templates about "original research" as Domer does). Right now there's a lot of reversion but no discussion. What exactly is the issue? Several of my edits were clarifications of confusing sentences -- far removed from POV or OR. -R. fiend (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems your doing most of the reverting.BigDunc (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please keep the article talk for discussing improvements to the article. There is, as you know, an AN/I thread where you can discuss any concerns about editors' behaviour. It is better to keep the two completely separate, or else not to comment at all. To answer the question, yes, that is what I meant. --John (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

New article

Thanks for your msg. See my reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#New_Article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Trolling

Dunc, you are being trolled here, mate. Don't rise to it, and stay focussed on the content. Rockpocket 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up not going to get into it with them. BigDunc (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For reverting vandalism to my user page. --John (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. BigDunc (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ETA

BD, my apologies if yesterday I sounded too harsh in the summary edits there. The thing is that, in Spanish, 'militante' doesnt have that violent connotation as "militant" seems to have in English (I only learnt about the latter recently) and, since you initially reverted not only this part, but my whole edit (intended as a stylistic one) that's why I got you wrong.

This said, I think 'militant' could still be used and be NPOV (since in English also seems to have the sense of "a person with strong beliefs") and that you considering this POV shows a bit too thin skin or just overcautiousness, because, after all, ETA members are 'militants' in the strict sense of their use of violence. But, since I dont want to open unnecessary controversies (nor I am completely sure about the term) I won't be insisting on that, because consensus there is a fragile thing not worth it breaking for such a thing.

In any case, once again, the intention of this post is apologizing if I sounded unfriendly. Have a good one. Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 13:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

None necessary both trying to make article better and as you noticed one word can start edit wars on topics such as this. Thanks for the message.BigDunc (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Email

Read and weep. Drinks are on you! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair paly to you good work it was bustin my balls all morning. BigDunc (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell the second one is right, as all the coding above the actual formula has a normal size "t" then the rest in subscript, plus it doesn't look at all right otherwise. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it's the second one fair play. BigDunc (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Process management

Sure, I posted some comments on the talk page for the article. — brighterorange (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And that's a mighty fine looking equation in the article too..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Big pat on the back ONIH fair play to you your a wiki legend :) BigDunc (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I seen the note on the discussion page suggesting it should be the main article on this subject. Very nice! --Domer48 (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Still a couple of diagrams to go in to it when I get the time and the know how. BigDunc (talk)

Tucks rift

Seems my Tucks rift page I started (and I mean started) was not to your liking.I was going to carry on with it, although I think I will now give it a miss (life is too short). The Tucks article was to be based on a published article in a European cave diving magazine(by me)I have a number to my name. I have also so far have published one cave diving guide book and I am the co editor<script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script> of a new cave diving training manual, due to be published in a few weeks. I had planed to add more hydrological information a survey as well as links to other articles and references. Rather than a petulant ,I do not see its worth reaction from you it, would have been better to contact me and ask if it was due to be continued. This was my first go at a wikipedia page, and last :-(

Adversus solem ne loquitor

AMW —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMRW (talk • contribs) 14:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of the reason that it was tagged for speedy deletion here and then you can start again. Hopefully you will reconsider your decision not to contribute to wikipedia. Also for future reference all articles should conform to WP:RS and WP:V. BigDunc (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

14:45 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMRW (talk • contribs) 14:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC) >a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. I understand this my comment was:

"I had planed to add more hydrological information a survey as well as links to other articles and references".

The way I work is to build and article by making additions and adding information over a week or so, this works for me although makes the start a bit sparse :-(

This cave is one I know well and have spent twenty years visiting the site (on and off) and I have added more passage to the cave, by finding the way on (new passage). I had planed that this was a start to adding more caves to wikipedia, caves in South Wales I know well and also caves in France were I also spend time cave diving.It would be a good reference to the knowledge of the caves with others able to add to that knowledge.

I will now leave this to some one else.

AMW

If you feel that you can create this article again please do and if I can help you with it I will. BigDunc (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dial-a-Phone

Since Dial-a-Phone survived the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dial-a-Phone, I do not think speedy deletion would be appropriate. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

James "James" Kennedy

BigDunc,

You had placed a CSD tag on this article for vandalism, but I believe a db-bio tag would be more appropriate. The page is probably written about its author, but it doesn't contain anything which could be thought of as vandalism. Or am I missing something? Red Zion^X 20:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No your right I placed the wrong tag on it I was about to change it but you beat me to it. BigDunc (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Red Zion^X 20:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobelinė

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Bobelinė. The reason is:

has enough context to identify the subject

For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back. BigDunc (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

For reverting the vandalism on my talk page. · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems. BigDunc (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad

That page is not a discussion forum, and civility is not negotiable. I've already handed out one block to an editor who restore that section, and I'm happy to hand out more if you like. Cheers, Wily D 19:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It was not a discussion in my opinion it was an attempt to enhance the article and to stop edit wars which YOU have played a major part in does WP:3RR count on talk pages and if it does are admins exempt from it because you have certainly broken it. BigDunc (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, I haven't said word one about 3RR - I'm only talking about civility & good behaviour. I may be guilty of a 3RR violation, and you can try your luck there if you feel so inclined. But I suspect most admins will be far less lienent about the kind of things that've been posted there than I have. Wily D 20:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you know accusing me of something else? If it is provide diffs or stop throwing accusations around. BigDunc (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not specifically accusing anyone of anything, beyond restoring inappropriate material. The discussion itself doesn't even start on the topic of the Muhammad article, but contains various accusations that editors are behaving inappropriately, including images to tittalate & offend, rather than for encyclopaedic purposes (without, of course, actually addressing the issue of the Muhammad article, whether the images are encyclopaedically useful or the like). Notice that penis is wikilink'd four times in that discussion - not because the link is useful, but to goad other editors. And goading goes on. Take a look at what's in the original post, although it's later somewhat toned down, it shows pretty clearly what was going on:

"USE YOUR BRAINS AND LEARN SOMETHING FROM THIS EXAMPLE." "rather than cowardly smokescreens that smug editors use to mask their pathetic culture-wars" "that editors don't give a rat's ass about doing the subject justice, but instead try to wave the flag of "non-censorship" to do whatever the hell they want to do, often within a context of fanning-flames or deliberately pissing people off" "am calling royal rotten B.S. on the editors of this article, and I am asking them for the sake of intellectual integrity to quit trying to mask their self-righteous little culture-war as some kind of noble exercise in non-censorship." "think your suggestion of linking to as opposed to posting the pictures is a load of used food" "Get the hell out of here. Here's a newsflash:" "And I can feel a racist undercurrent appearing in the latest replies." Baiting, baiting, baiting. And purging a little of it doesn't clear the air. That talk page is a G-D mess, and a little air-freshener doesn't clear the air - the stentch lingers on. In tense situations like this, it's a very common practice to just remove harmful material rather than kick a lot of asses. There's not actual discussion on whether the images are appropriate there, just a lot of back and forth "You're racists & cultural imperialists who get off on offending people" with "You're a bunch of dishonest intolerant jerks intent on censoring our noble endevor" - neither of these arguments are help, both are decidedly harmful. WP:CIVILITY says "comment on the content, not the contributor", and that's what'll happen, regardless of how much or how little people like it.

By-the-by, warnings aren't threats. Feel free to hold whatever positions you like, and make any content based arguments you like to improve the encyclopaedia - just don't insult your fellow editors. Wily D —Preceding comment was added at 20:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Where have I insulted any editors in the thread that you deleted, if you can show me one that is even remotely insulting I will apologise to that editor if not I feel it is you that owes the apology to me for your accusation. BigDunc (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of insulting anyone. I've accused the section, which contains comments by several editors, of being uncivil. For what it's worth this comment of yours, while not explicitly directed at any editor, is the kind of thing proscribed by CIVIL. Beyond that, 72.48.250.225 was the one to start saying "cock" as much as she could, and whether intential or not (and I'm not taking bets) the effect is to shock everyone and turn discussion into argument. Wily D 21:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And my reply was directed at everyone who used the word, I felt too and I said it, that it was an attempt to shock or goad so your diff backs me up. But what was the implication here by User:Mhking I think that you and others like you are more concerned with forcing your world view onto everyone else. if that is not baiting then I dont know what is. BigDunc (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, and Mhking has admitted he was getting carried away and I've called his argument harmful two paragraphs up from here. The reason I elected to blank the entire section, rather than warn/block specific editors is because several people were getting carried away. Wily D 21:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Still cant figure your reason for a warning me, dont see no warning here for his actions. BigDunc (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, I warned you because either a) you restored the problematic section after I blanked it, or b) I mistakenly believed you restored the problematic section after I blanked it. I warned people who did that, and didn't those who didn't. My hope was that it could be dropped and people could move on. Wily D 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad thats cleared up I reverted and asked a question as to why it was removed got no reply and it was again reverted so I reverted again which I suppose can bring a warning re WP:3RR but you said it was nothing to do with that, so confusion is expected. But should warnings not have been given to editors to remain civil, as you said it was one of the reasons you deleted thread. BigDunc (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, maybe. In the specific case of Mhking, he almost immeadiately posted something to my talk indicating he realised he'd been getting carried away, so it's a moot point. Poorly executed on my part I guess, I was hoping people would "take the hint" Wily D 21:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Would that be the one where they personally attack another editor or at the very least dont WP:AGF by calling her a troll who was getting under there skin. All more examples of the civility of that editor and still no warning. BigDunc (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

You have been 3 granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessens the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, which means that you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [rollback] (which should appear unbolded if you have twinkle installed) on the lastest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Patrolling pages and tagging with CSD

Hi there, in case you didn't know, there is a feature called patrolled pages. After you tag an article for speedy deletion, you should mark it as patrolled so other editors don't waste their time re-reviewing it. Thanks --Shootthedevgru (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

On which article did I do that on? As in the last 10 mins I came across a few tagged and not marked as patrolled I always do if I missed one sorry. BigDunc (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I did notice a couple that weren't patrolled. And checking your logs I can see you're marking heaps of stuff as patrolled. Apologies for false alarm. --Shootthedevgru (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No probs.BigDunc (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to drop a note of thanks for your kind words yesterday. Looking through your contribs I noticed how much counter-vandalism legwork you have done using twinkle. That is much appreciated, so you deserve:

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your tireless work in protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. Rockpocket 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

STALKER

Can you please stop stalking me and changing the legitimate changes that were made. The changes were made based on the evidence I have seen. I've asked you more than once to stop messaging me with threatening messages. Like I said before this is not a website where an opinion is needed, only facts. Don't delete this message like the previous one. I want this post to be something of a message for you to see what kind of STALKER you are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.71.145.155 (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right so before you add content please read WP:V and WP:RS as these are fundemental to creating an encyclopedia. BigDunc (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read that article, and I am started to question if you have. You're a servant of this site, please serve in the right manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.71.145.155 (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So then you know that verifiability and reliable sources are what you need to provide for the article.BigDunc (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you clicked on the link below that shows the video of the incident? Its obvious you haven't. And also, please don't have your messages send me threatening messages. You and your internet friends have a role to play, play that role and don't abuse your power. The next time you and your friends send me a threatening message about not being able to edit, I am going to report you to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.71.145.155 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link if you feel that any editor is abusing you WP:AN. You are free to bring any complaint you have there. BigDunc (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael L. Vincent

Could you take a look at this one again? Seems to me he still isn't making a very strong case, but I don't want to be unfair to the subject (the editor, on the other hand, has a bad case of ownership going on). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh crazy mess that became today. I just went over to Rock to thank him for attempting a clean up. Was that a sock/meat puppet farm? I can't even make heads or tails of that 'discussion' anymore. COI drives me up a wall. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't be surprised if it is himself doing edits.BigDunc (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Could be. I don't think it's the creator, he's not one for one line responses, but who knows. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't think it was nonsense, probably Wasfou514 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from the sock drawer that hadn't signed in. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel bad for the closing admin, it's a mess and a half. How many reverts were there yesterday? I felt so loved to have my talk page deleted TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah now that you say it I new I had seen it before but wasn't sure. BigDunc (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but it has now lost its novelty. The socks can go back in their drawer. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You know you are doing something right when the vandals come after you Travellingcari :) BigDunc (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently. I just wish Potts would quit trying to hide the COI. It's irking me, TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah hopefully an admin will jump in soon and make a judgement it is going round in circles, as soon as a new delete appears the same answers are posted again. BigDunc (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

round and round it goes, where it stops. No one knows. A few recent AfDs were finally put out of their misery but there are still a couple more to come. Wonder if I'm going to come back from a meeting to a blanked talk page TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have it on my watch list so my beedy eye is on it. They will be gone soon enough to annoy someone else. BigDunc (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye out, I'm glad they've *touch wood* gotten bored TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Travellingcari. I'll reply here for the sake of keeping discussion centralized. I've been keeping an eye on this and, while it is a sock farm, its probably not worth taking action as it will likely just spur them into making more socks. I removed the comments of one editor because they were abusive, but the closing admin should see the rest of the comments for what they are (I'll close it myself if I am around at the expiry). Rockpocket 07:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

There's more socks than M&S right now! The closing admin might also want to take into account the threat to recreate the article repeatedly, and have salt on standby.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK can I have the Reader's Digest version of what went down? I came home and my watch list exploded, 90% of which are this article from hell. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Daithi Doolan

I've nominated for re-deletion. Can't see what he has since last September to justify an entry. Valenciano (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. BigDunc (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the page, if you can come up with something to justify inclusion I'll be happy enough to reconsider. For now I don't think the Rafferty thing is enough. Valenciano (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Elijah Harper

I understand your concern, but don't worry it isn't a personal analysis. If you read the articles Elijah Harper and Meech Lake Accord, you'll see that Elijah Harper did, verifiably, single-handedly save Canada from a consitutional amendment that was trying to end democratic rule and break up the country. --130.15.164.45 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can identify with that Dunc ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I sure can he sounds like a good man.BigDunc (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

About Pictures on your article

Hi, Good Day dear,

Reason for this discussion about that image... I'm sure you're not intentionally added that pictures, except for historian reference. But why I'm trying the same work as other Muslims tried many times, becoz of making this world for better place like peace and peoples love n care each other. You know what these pictures is changing the world? Hate, destructions and terrorism. Any single moment, did you think what happenings in the world after adding this picture? Are you sure you're absolutely right? or are you ever think that after this century all human being not blaming you for a start a new horrifying war?

Dun, are you sure, your article is worth it for a history? I'm not offence, don't try to think that I'm blaming anything wrong with you, b'coz I'm muslim, (Al-Hamdo-Lillah) and in our religion we can't hate, blaming wrong, using dirty words, or even think anything bad for anyone not even other believers. If any muslim cause a bad thing in broader aspects, Allah (God) never forgive him/her, if he/she did very worst and big mistake and that mistakes harm only for them, Allah (God) forgive him/her.

At this moment, I don't why you still pretend to protect these images, you can see millions of peoples are tried to remove from here, but they can't b'coz of your protection. You know we (All Muslims) hate terrorist attacks on anyone, we extremely resist with thos terrorist. In our country Pakistan, we are in attack from Al-Qaieda (we are beleivers, beleives these are not muslims) but we are facing those attacks. Many friends and relatives died on those suicidal bomb attacks. How, I or other suffrred pplz like those terrorist?

I'm asking you one thing, if your neighbour drink alot, and after his drinking he beats his wife and child, and fight with OLD men and women, what you'll do? "I, only watching English Movies" and that's why my conclusion is you'll call your local sherif. Am I Right? So, can you tell what for? Ok, I think for the sake of his family, for the sake of other neighbourhoods, you can say for the sake of community. But why not for humanity? why you're still trying to protect this garbage image on this article? I'm sure Dun, if you delete these images and add a not for the sake of humanity I've deleted this image and I'm appologize with all humanbeings who hurted with this act, everybody will appreciate you, coz you are one who make a first step for better and most important needy path PEACE for this world.

I'm not sure, you're agree with me or not, but at this moment, I can say only one thing GOD Bless you, may be this blessings will change you...

Have a nice day!

Khursheed Alam info@khursheedalam.com --Peace 04:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC) comment added by Karcrush (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad

Hello, I was wondering why you felt that the Prophet Muhammad didn't belong in the Islam category. Peter Deer (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't intend to remove cat I was restoring image. BigDunc (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry

hey, i'm sorry for deleting the change on my page- was adding a link to the webpage and somehow deleted it by mistake. i'm kinda new to this but felt the need to get this page up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ticktack718 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem have a read of the welcome I gave you very useful links in it, they will help you a lot and if you have any questions just let me know and if I can help I will, happy editing. BigDunc (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

user page

cheers.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem.BigDunc (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Accuride

Wait a second! Before slapping a speedy-delete tag on an article, take a look at my background. I've been a productive editor with thousands of edits to my name in a variety of subjects. I am perfectly aware of WP's Notability guidelines, and added the Accuride article in view of them. I just started working on this article a few minutes ago, and before I even had a chance to add some comments about notability, you put the tag on. Accuride is the best-known manufacturer of drawer slides in the US, especially among smaller cabinet shops. This is not to say that they're the biggest or most important (that would probably be Blum (company)), but they are surely notable. That said, I agree that it is hard to prove that they're notable. I suppose I'd have to go through a few past issues of Fine Woodworking (which is not available online) or whatever to show that.... --Macrakis (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then you are aware of the process nothing personal im sure an admin if they feel company is WP:N they will remove the tag. BigDunc (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say there was anything personal. Putting a speedy-delete tag is a question of judgement. You should use whatever relevant evidence there is, not just put it on and wait for an admin to remove it if necessary. --Macrakis (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well as you say it is a question of judgement, I made a judgement on a two and a half line article with no reliable secondary sources, or for that matter no sources at all except for a link to this companies web page. BigDunc (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

why did you delet my page?

Tatie says it all, i was in the progress of making in, give me a break! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpsbrad (talk • contribs) 09:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see WP:N and I will leave a welcome on your talk page with a list of helpful links.BigDunc (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. As you may have seen, Fpsbrad has left the building anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For all your hard work

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Unlike some of us lazy swines, it's nice to see someone doing the more mundane yet essential work! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It'd be better if I could spell. And new article coming later, should be finished in a few hours. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Look forward to it always good articles. BigDunc (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go. Lead isn't finished yet, still needs a bit of work... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I may be a lazy sod, but when I get there it's usually worth the wait! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the barnstar, slightly unexpected but much appreciated! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem well deserved ;) BigDunc (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks friend -yes it really is very diverse my work but this is why it is important to counteract systematic bias!!! I had a particularly productive day yesterday -have a look -many new articles on Romanian poets etc. Today it is Thai hospitals and Burundian mining lol! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that is what I call diversity. BigDunc (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom Fun

Hey BigDunc, I contested the A7 on the The Tom Fun Orchestra I don't really have a stake in the article since it was created from WP:AFC but I think it should be brought to AfD since it seems like a good start to an article.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This was deleted yesterday under same criteria I feel it fails WP:MUSIC but I could be wrong.BigDunc (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Failing WP:MUSIC (or any notability guidelines) isn't always a reason for speedy deletion though Dunc. You're better off saving the speedies for "Kill The Peelers are a band from Crossmaglen. They formed a week ago, and are hoping to play gigs in the near future" and stuff like that. If it asserts some degree of notability, you're better off prodding it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The refs to me look like blogs might be wrong on that.BigDunc (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it as Copyright Violation, but I don't think we should prejudice the article for future recreation with original content.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem

There always has to be someone with princriples who knows the difference between right and wrong! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you delete my company??? (Waccomando (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

Have a read of this it will fill you in on why articles are deleted. Also have a look at WP:COI-- BigDunc (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Mayo Librarian Case

Hi BigDunc,

the Mayo Librarian Case is well known in Ireland. Some references:

The Making of Fianna Fáil Power in Ireland, 1923-1948, Page 129 [4]

The Making of Ireland: From Ancient Times to the Present, Page 374 [5]

I don't think it is dubious at all.

Starviking (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats great thanks for the refs. BigDunc (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No probs BigDunc. It's an interesting quote viewed from the evolution (or devolution?) of the IFS and Northern Ireland - Protestant and Catholic States. Starviking (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive links

Why have you got ten links that all link to User talk:BigDunc/Archive 3? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at that now that you say it, I thought that they were all different with the little bit from each run added, didn't know that the first was the same as the last. I thought it was just adding little bits each time DOH. BigDunc (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That degree course in computer science is coming in handy then I see ;) One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha i thought they were incremental see what thought gets you.:)BigDunc (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I remember, it'll keep using the same archive until it gets to a certain size, then start a new one. I don't know why it started at 3 when there's no 1 or 2 though.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it goes up to 250k looking at it now and the 3 is my fault set it as 3 and not 1 another DOH.BigDunc (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For some reason I can't find the place you're studying listed here.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You wont find it there either I have sent you a link to where I am studying.BigDunc (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Stars galore and smiles of love!! your goin soft in your old age Dunc..Ive a bunch of flowers here but just cant copy and paste the feckers,il catch you of a saturday...Breen32 (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

?

Dear BigDunc

R U the one who deleted the article 'Orla Smirnova'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BudgieMikeInAmerica (talk • contribs) 15:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No it was done at 12:08, March 21, 2008 by User:Toddst1. I nominated it for speedy deletion which was done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. BigDunc (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why

Why did you delete me????? Why did you feel my comments on Warrenpoint and Omagh merited a warning,BigDunc?I am still reduced to tears when I think of the time I sat at Alan Radford's grave.Why aren't people more passionate over victims like him?Yours truly,Jeanne--jeanne (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)--17:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

Please have a read of Talk Page Guidelines. It is nothing to do with not having compassion for the victims of these acts. In the case of the Dublin Bombings if it had not been for a bus strike on the day of the attacks it is possible I could have been caught up in them, as it was I was stood in O'Connell Street waitng for a taxi to take me home. Instead of being at the bus stop yards from one of the explosion sites. BigDunc (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

hi

I was living in LA in 1974.You were lucky.Anna Massey(whose sister I once met at a club) died because of the bus strike.I used to work on Talbot.ST. at the American Connection in 1981 and I was always remimded of all those people(for the most part working -class women from the flats) who died.jeanne (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sudar 4edi (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

While you were sleeping

Some of us were out and about! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting old now need my beauty sleep.BigDunc (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that feeling! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Need to find a ref to find out how sick he was when executed probably had the flu or something but cant find out anything on it ;) BigDunc (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently he did have the fever, but that's ignoring he'd been shot twice and had gangrene. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Short?!

What definition of "short" are you using? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually meant A3 not A1 Not short little or no context, another DOH to add to the collection deleted in any way. BigDunc (talk)

Well it's gone anyway, thankfully! Almost time for that riot good laugh anyway, just finishing some tweaking. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Look forward to reading it.BigDunc (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I heard mention of a riot..Will it offend the trolls of winters past..?Breen32 (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

??????????. BigDunc (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This riot? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

D'oh!. BigDunc (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That cat was me!I feel that as I'm about3/4 Irish,I may as well declare myself Irish.I would like to use an Irish ancestry template but do not know how to transfer it to my user page!Jeanne Boleynjeanne (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You rang?

That font hurts me eyes though, it has to be said. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Im supposed to be studying but dossing here instead. Sorry for hurting your sensitive eyes :). Im going to change the fonts too.BigDunc (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume that was what you wanted? I might need to reformat it slightly yet though. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It was the only one I could remember apart from the usual ones. Going to open up word and have a look at the list.BigDunc (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant fixing the userboxes so they are in the main box? D'oh! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was going to do that too. But you obliged again fair play to you.BigDunc (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Alison wouldn't approve of how I did it, but meh! You've got mail about that TV show by the way. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Really?

I am usually pretty good about marking any pages I take a look at. Not sure what I missed, but I'll try to stay more diligent in the future. Thanks for the heads-up. CiTrusD ^{Talk here!} 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Newpages Patrol

Hi! In fact, I am marking patrolled pages as patrolled... but if I have forgotten some, please forgive me.

Thanks for helping to clean up Wikipedia!

_(criticize)Sp.Kthepurplepixel 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You're popular again I see?

Whose page have you had deleted now? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bloody Vandals :) thanks.BigDunc (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Gah, it was me. Rollback said it wasn't! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback never lies :) BigDunc (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It did! It said someone else had already done it. You watched that show yet? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No wont let me something to do with a licence for my region from BBC.BigDunc (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WTF?! There was me thinking it was a free version as well otherwise I wouldn't have linked you to it. Serves you right for having independence I reckon. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Does have its downsides lol.BigDunc (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You got a DVD burner? I'll convert it and upload it for you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah grat stuff.BigDunc (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC):::tanks BigDunc for adding the Irish ancestry Userboxjeanne (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC) to my Userpage.I suppose I can now take my rightful place in the Rogues Gallery.

Redlinks

Hi! One does not remove redlinks just because they are red. The solution is to create the article, eventually someone will. Punkmorten (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

They were removed because they were IMO being used to infer notability not just because they were there see here. The ones I removed were for a non notable musician that probably would have faild WP:N.--BigDunc (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Women in politics

Hi Dunc

In replying to a message from Padraig on my talk page, I got a bit confused as to who had done what ... but I think I have a solution to the objections you raised to Category:Northern Irish women in politics. Please could you have a look at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Fra_McCann? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at it there yeah thats a good cat to coin a phrase does exactly what it says on the tin.BigDunc (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'll change it later. Thanks for yr quick reply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC) (heading off to find some tins to put all the women politicians in ...)

Re: Twinkle

Regarding twinkle bugreport. Can you please add WHAT kind of tags you are trying to add ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gearoid Adams

It is NAT an unhelpful message. The IRA are an illegal and terrorist organiation. Just like all the illegal and terrorist LOYALISTS ORGANISATIONS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdefghijklmnopwxyz (talk • contribs) 16:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In the ROI they are not classed as such.BigDunc (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I AM FROM THE REPUBLIC AND WOULD JUST AS MUCH LIKE TO SEE THE NORTH BACK WITH US BUT THE IRA ARE TERRORISTS AND ARE ILLEGAL IN THIS STATE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdefghijklmnopwxyz (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the IRA is a legal group in the republic of Ireland?!Traditional unionist (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No thats not what I am suggesting. They are an illegal organisation not an illegal terrorist organisation. Under the Offences against the state act people are convicted of membership of an illegal organisation.BigDunc (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you should have reverted "terrorist" and not "illegal".Traditional unionist (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No he shouldn't, see the prior discussion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Freudian slip

Just in case you missed this edit summary. Scolaire (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No they knew exactly what they were saying Scolaire, it is not the first time this editor has made a personal attack on me. By saying freudian slip they feel any editor not knowing the history between us would accept it as a genuine slip, but I dont I know his form.BigDunc (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter

The Terrorism WikiProject
April 2008 Newsletter

News

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was made a Featured Article
Omar Khadr has an ongoing peer review as it begins the slow crawl towards Featured Article status

Trials have begun this month in the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Benbrika affair and 2006 Toronto terrorism case, each article could use a good vetting, and the articles on specific alleged terrorists are desperately in need of some clean-up.
Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein had his case overturned by the Iraqi courts and was ordered released, although the US military says they will not release him.
China announced that they had disrupted a plot targeting the 2008 Summer Olympics, while detractors claim it was fabricated.
The bail hearing for Abdullah Khadr, fighting extradition to the United States, is scheduled for April 29
Former Turkish Member of Parliament Leyla Zana is sentenced to two years imprisonment for praising Abdullah Öcalan.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list needs votes on whether or not it should be kept on Wikipedia.

Archives • Discussion

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Regarding the page Gin Wigmore, which you tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of an article about a real person, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject, I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion under that criterion because notability is claimed by the statement that she won an international songwriting competition. If you still want the page to be deleted, please re-tag it under a CSD criterion that applies, consider redirecting the article, or use the proposed deletion or the articles for deletion processes. Thanks!

I am not watching this page so if you require further information please contact me on my talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)