User talk:BigDunc

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fansoffans1983 (talk | contribs) at 17:11, 11 December 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:11, 11 December 2007 by Fansoffans1983 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) START A NEW TOPIC ON THIS PAGE

Note: If you post a message here, I'll reply here for continuity. If I post a message on your talk page I will have put it on my watchlist, so you can reply there.

Hello BigDunc, and Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! ----Domer48 21:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Getting Started
Introduction The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to edit a page
How you can help
Contributing to Misplaced Pages Comunity Portal

Getting Help
Help pages Where to ask a question New contributors' help page Cheatsheet
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution

Feel free to help out on any topic!

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

(For more information on WikiProjects, please see Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Adalme

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adalme (talk • contribs) 13:16, 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages

Useful links