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. |
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}}
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)
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)
The reason I reverted that edit was it was badly written.-- padraig 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please review wp:categorisation. There is no need to have category:Sligo added to the Macmanus article as this is clearly overcategorisation. Also, you might like to stop edit warring on the page and leave appropriate edit summaries as per wiki policy. Kernel Saunters 09:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No I won't. And if you are in fact so concerned about discussion, then perhaps you would realise the obvious mistake in allowing someone to write "Five of those wounded were shot in the back". Why can the Bloody Sunday article not have a box if the Kilmichael Ambush and Crossbarry Ambush can?
Well do you think that detail (that is so trivial so that if it was put in the introduction of an article I would probably be fully justified it pointing it out) would be seen in an article of Encyclopedia Britannica?
By the way "Big Dunc", I do not care if there is a box or not, however just because the protestors did not have guns or nail bombs (which I am not saying is false), does not mean they were unarmed.
Just so you know, I think using an online encyclopedia to voice your Republican sentiments is a bit childish and pathetic as well, when the "soldiers" you laud were ambushing real soldiers in trucks while others are now throwing stones at fire fighters and the police.posted by84.64.213.101
Well like I said, I don't care what other people see. And I wasn't there in 1972 or at the inquiry and neither was anybody else who wrote this article so why were they allowed to make comments like this without a source, "It is now widely accepted that the nail bombs photographed on Gerard Donaghy were planted there after his death".
"What you are saying would not be found anywhere let alone Encyclopedia Britannica" Yes but then the only thing I have done to that article is add an infobox (which I took from another article) out of disrespect for this website. I actually thought it was quite funny. As funny as this website in fact, which is precisely why I won't sign up.posted by84.64.213.101
As fun as this has been, I'm afraid it's time for you to shut up because I won't be responding to you anymore.
One last thing: I think rocks are weapons and always bear in mind why the British Army came in numbers to Northern Ireland in 1969 in the first place when you edit your articles. Enjoy your infobox...
The answer to that last question is as plain as the noes on your two faces-Invasion of Ireland under the flag of oppression..something the british army and the british establishment have expert guile in-and what better way to occupy another country than prending to help the natives...just as america and britain are doing to this day in Iraq...Well done,you are a real jem of information..Or have you shut up for good...? Breen32 17:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
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. - Two Oars 14:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Oh and this might be of use too. - Two Oars 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Hello Big Dunc. Regarding this , 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. Rockpocke t 16:39, 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. Rockpocke t 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)
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). Rockpocke t 18:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
There you go. One Night In Hackney 303 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
)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)
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)
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)
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)
I sometimes find myself without internet access over weekends. This weekend is one such instance. Traditional unionist 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I rather think Dunc [3] it is a case of the headmistress and the senior prefect. Giano 17:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Rockpocke t 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)
This clears it up a bit. Despite the various theories about why, the IRA claimed responsbility. One Night In Hackney 303 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. |
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)
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)
Thanks for your msg. See my reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#New_Article. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Dunc, you are being trolled here, mate. Don't rise to it, and stay focussed on the content. Rockpocke t 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
For reverting vandalism to my user page. -- John ( talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Read and weep. Drinks are on you! One Night In Hackney 303 14:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I posted some comments on the talk page for the article. — brighterorange ( talk) 16:33, 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)
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/?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)
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
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)
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 ZionX 20:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Bobelinė. The reason is:
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)
For reverting the vandalism on my talk page. · AndonicO Hail! 13:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
"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.
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)
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)
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. Rockpocke t 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
You know you are doing something right when the vandals come after you Travellingcari :) BigDunc ( talk) 21:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
cheers. Traditional unionist ( talk) 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Hackney 303 09:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
No problem well deserved ;) BigDunc ( talk) 12:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
There always has to be someone with princriples who knows the difference between right and wrong! One Night In Hackney 303 20:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Why have you got ten links that all link to User talk:BigDunc/Archive 3? One Night In Hackney 303 12:53, 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)
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)
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.
Some of us were out and about! One Night In Hackney 303 10:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
What definition of "short" are you using? One Night In Hackney 303 17:32, 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)
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 Boleyn jeanne ( talk) 16:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
That font hurts me eyes though, it has to be said. One Night In Hackney 303 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 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)
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.K
the
purplepixel
18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Whose page have you had deleted now? One Night In Hackney 303 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Just in case you missed this edit summary. Scolaire ( talk) 18:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The Terrorism WikiProject April 2008 Newsletter |
||
News
| ||
Archives • Discussion |
Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 05:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. |
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}}
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)
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)
The reason I reverted that edit was it was badly written.-- padraig 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please review wp:categorisation. There is no need to have category:Sligo added to the Macmanus article as this is clearly overcategorisation. Also, you might like to stop edit warring on the page and leave appropriate edit summaries as per wiki policy. Kernel Saunters 09:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No I won't. And if you are in fact so concerned about discussion, then perhaps you would realise the obvious mistake in allowing someone to write "Five of those wounded were shot in the back". Why can the Bloody Sunday article not have a box if the Kilmichael Ambush and Crossbarry Ambush can?
Well do you think that detail (that is so trivial so that if it was put in the introduction of an article I would probably be fully justified it pointing it out) would be seen in an article of Encyclopedia Britannica?
By the way "Big Dunc", I do not care if there is a box or not, however just because the protestors did not have guns or nail bombs (which I am not saying is false), does not mean they were unarmed.
Just so you know, I think using an online encyclopedia to voice your Republican sentiments is a bit childish and pathetic as well, when the "soldiers" you laud were ambushing real soldiers in trucks while others are now throwing stones at fire fighters and the police.posted by84.64.213.101
Well like I said, I don't care what other people see. And I wasn't there in 1972 or at the inquiry and neither was anybody else who wrote this article so why were they allowed to make comments like this without a source, "It is now widely accepted that the nail bombs photographed on Gerard Donaghy were planted there after his death".
"What you are saying would not be found anywhere let alone Encyclopedia Britannica" Yes but then the only thing I have done to that article is add an infobox (which I took from another article) out of disrespect for this website. I actually thought it was quite funny. As funny as this website in fact, which is precisely why I won't sign up.posted by84.64.213.101
As fun as this has been, I'm afraid it's time for you to shut up because I won't be responding to you anymore.
One last thing: I think rocks are weapons and always bear in mind why the British Army came in numbers to Northern Ireland in 1969 in the first place when you edit your articles. Enjoy your infobox...
The answer to that last question is as plain as the noes on your two faces-Invasion of Ireland under the flag of oppression..something the british army and the british establishment have expert guile in-and what better way to occupy another country than prending to help the natives...just as america and britain are doing to this day in Iraq...Well done,you are a real jem of information..Or have you shut up for good...? Breen32 17:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
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. - Two Oars 14:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Oh and this might be of use too. - Two Oars 14:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Hello Big Dunc. Regarding this , 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. Rockpocke t 16:39, 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. Rockpocke t 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)
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). Rockpocke t 18:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
There you go. One Night In Hackney 303 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
)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)
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)
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)
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)
I sometimes find myself without internet access over weekends. This weekend is one such instance. Traditional unionist 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I rather think Dunc [3] it is a case of the headmistress and the senior prefect. Giano 17:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Rockpocke t 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)
This clears it up a bit. Despite the various theories about why, the IRA claimed responsbility. One Night In Hackney 303 23:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. |
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)
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)
Thanks for your msg. See my reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#New_Article. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Dunc, you are being trolled here, mate. Don't rise to it, and stay focussed on the content. Rockpocke t 00:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
For reverting vandalism to my user page. -- John ( talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Read and weep. Drinks are on you! One Night In Hackney 303 14:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I posted some comments on the talk page for the article. — brighterorange ( talk) 16:33, 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)
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/?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)
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
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)
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 ZionX 20:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Bobelinė. The reason is:
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)
For reverting the vandalism on my talk page. · AndonicO Hail! 13:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
"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.
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)
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)
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. Rockpocke t 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
You know you are doing something right when the vandals come after you Travellingcari :) BigDunc ( talk) 21:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
cheers. Traditional unionist ( talk) 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Hackney 303 09:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
No problem well deserved ;) BigDunc ( talk) 12:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
There always has to be someone with princriples who knows the difference between right and wrong! One Night In Hackney 303 20:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Why have you got ten links that all link to User talk:BigDunc/Archive 3? One Night In Hackney 303 12:53, 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)
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)
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.
Some of us were out and about! One Night In Hackney 303 10:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
What definition of "short" are you using? One Night In Hackney 303 17:32, 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)
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 Boleyn jeanne ( talk) 16:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
That font hurts me eyes though, it has to be said. One Night In Hackney 303 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 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)
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.K
the
purplepixel
18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Whose page have you had deleted now? One Night In Hackney 303 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Just in case you missed this edit summary. Scolaire ( talk) 18:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The Terrorism WikiProject April 2008 Newsletter |
||
News
| ||
Archives • Discussion |
Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 05:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
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)