User talk:BigDunc/Archive 6

Deletion

Hi BigDunc

Please can you advise as to why the feelgd page is not acceptable for insertion into the wikipedia database? Any help or advise would be greatly appreciated as i am relatively new to the wikipedia concept.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpfulwriter2009 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Helpfulwriter2009 the article you are refering too was deleted by an admin named Herbythyme because it was an article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. If you wan't you could email me what you added and I will see if I can find some verifiable and reliable sources to add to the article as these are very important to establish notablity. Or you could request a copy fromthe admin who deleted the article so you can work on it they can set it up for you in a sandbox hope that helps happy editing. BigDunc^Talk 13:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI

You are mentioned: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Complaint_against_User:Domer48_for_disruptive_editing.2C_etc. Rockpocket 21:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It was addressed here. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes setup

Heya! Just wanted to say I "borrowed" your userbox setup; I hope you don't mind. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 21:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not in the slighest take what you want no problems at all. BigDunc^Talk 22:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediation/North Irish Horse

Dunc, would you mind if the stuff from the mediation that was to do with sourcing on North Irish Horse was copied to the article talkpage? I'd jsut like the work I did on checking out the sources to end up somewhere slightly more relevant. David Underdown (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem at all it was one of the most constructive parts of the mediation. BigDunc^Talk 10:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Appearances

Hi, I just wanted to respond to your posts on my talk page. While I'm not interested in delving into the depths of your dispute, as I am not involved in any step of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and have no desire to be, I would like to comment on what the situation on my talk page looks like, to someone completely uninvolved. Mooretwin was completely within his rights to ask me to explain the reasoning behind my close on the requested move of Special Category Status. I am not taking anybody's side in this, but when 2 editors show up on my talk page to criticize an editor who made a reasonable request of me, it looks extremely like tag-teaming. I am not accusing you of tag-teaming, I am merely stating that a disinterested observer on my talk page could reasonably make that conclusion. This is something of which you should be careful in the future. While you may be in the right, it is easy to get so worked up over something that you don't realize that you've crossed a line. Just thought I'd let you know, as a helpful note. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did I criticise him? He made an accusation against me and another editor on your page and all I did was respond to it. I knew about his post as he was told to ask you by an admin, who is a supporter and doesn't know that when no consensus is reached the page doesn't move, so I looked to see what he said and lo and behold more personal attacks. BigDunc^Talk 15:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There was no "personal attack". Kindly stop making allegations against me. Mooretwin (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c x3 due to trolling) Just because you see the personal attack doesn't mean you have to respond to it. Beyond that, I'm not going to comment on this, beyond what I've already said. Cheers,--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks BigDunc^Talk 16:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) editors with a history of personal conflict against me, I consider that a personal attack I have never directed any of my edits to annoy or engage in personal attacks against you yet you say it at any chance you get. BigDunc^Talk 18:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not a "personal attack": merely a statement of fact. We have been in conflict on several articles. You have also intervened with third parties to make negative comments about me, e.g. today. Mooretwin (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ettore Pozzoli

Hello BigDunk. I have just seen the note you have inserted on the page "Ettore Pozzoli". The web site you refer to is the official web site of the piano contest dedicated to Ettore Pozzoli and it is the only font were you can find an english text of the pianist. Actually the web site is held directly by the city of Seregno, and, to tell the truth, I am a governor of the city. So please evaluate if you can consider valid the text used for that Wiki page. Thanks --Vpower1962 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears an editor User:GK tramrunner is doing a re-write on the article and will probably get saved. I placed the tag as it looked like a copy and paste of the website listed and I could see no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license on the text from the site. Please make sure that you don't just copy and paste content to avoid this happening again happy editing. BigDunc^Talk 22:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again...--Vpower1962 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Should have a copy...I'll try again tomorrow. Keep an eye on it, I'll do my best. Thanks--Vpower1962 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You can request a copy from the admin that deleted the article User:Sandstein and they can set it up in your user space so you can work on the article. BigDunc^Talk 23:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, Dunc for archiving some of my talk page. Titch was right, it was getting rather long.--jeanne (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Advice for inline citation

Thanks for pointing out the need of inline citations in Bruno Dupire's article. May I ask if there are examples of what an appropriate inline citation would be? I refer to his articles in the text, but I believe you may have found this to be not sufficient. Could you clarify a little more in detail please? Many thanks Piloter (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a read here might help you with your citations happy editing. BigDunc^Talk 17:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverting an old edit

Hi there. I was wondering if you could help me out as I don't do much editing on Wikipedia. I noticed that you rverted a edit I made in April this year on the BNP page (One of only two edits that I've ever made!). I'm sure you had a good reason for doing this but I can't see what it might be. I don't want to upset people by making inappropriate edits, so could you help me out by suggesting what was wrong with the style / content of my edit? Thanks

MalachiK (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking back I'm not sure why I reverted as it looks like a perfectly good edit and should not have been undone but no harm as I was reverted myself 2 minutes later. I can only think that I might have mis-read what you added my apologies. I have put a list of links on your talk page to help you with editing here and hope you decide to stay. Any thing I can help you with just post here and I will reply, Happy Editing. BigDunc^Talk 23:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back so quickly. On reflection I don't think it makes much difference either way, I was just worried I was missing something. I'll certainly take a look at those links you posted, the help is much appreciated! MalachiK (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Possible socks

I would suggest filing a report at WP:SSP, or if it is a chronic issue that is sort of obvious and quick to deal with, WP:ANI would be okay too. Cirt (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Latest sock has been indef blocked thanks. BigDunc^Talk 23:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

canvas

Stop canvasing you yourself in stead of threatening me. Davin (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:CANVASS obviously not or you wouldn't be on my page with this laughable comment. Can you show me a diff were I canvassed any editor, I have provided diffs were you canvassed here and on the Dutch wiki now take the advice that was offered to you by another editor. Also could you strike your accusations which are totally without foundation thanks. BigDunc^Talk 17:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Help Reverting Multiple Revisions

One of the pages I watch, Union_City,_Tennessee, has three consecutive vandalisms. I've reverted single vandalisms, but is there a way I can revert them all in one step? If you don't know off-hand, I'm happy to search for it, but I thought this might be faster. NoNonsenseHumJock (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes what you do is go to the history and the one without vandalism is the edit made by smackbot and then restore that version by clicking were the date and time is, in this case it is 08:07, January 5, 2009. When you click that it will bring up the version that smackbot made an edit then as normal you just go to edit. Put an edit summary of revert vandal. So that was the hard way there is a tool you can use to help you called WP:TWINKLE have a read of it and it makes reverting vandals a whole lot easier. Also remember to warn the vandals that you have reverted a list of warning templates can be found here. I have reverted the vandal happy editing. BigDunc^Talk 19:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revisions

From a new editor. Hi BigDunc, think I saw your sig at RefDesk/Computer, (malwarebytes probably) and followed link to your page. I have seen the topic of "Flagged Revisions" several places, and admit to knowing virtually nothing about it. What I read seemed like a good idea, (marking good versions of articles to be used to replace vandalism - if I understood the idea correctly). I notice that you had a very definite "Say No" position, and was hoping to hear or read both sides of the issue. Thank You for your time, and Kind Regards Ched (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that it makes a farce of the wiki ethos that it is an encyclopedia that Anyone can edit as this is a core principle of Wikipedia. I feel that it adds a layer of bureaucracy were by an elite group of editors have the final say on what appears on the page and what doesn’t. It also introduces the possibility that completely valid and accurate edits may be blocked simply because the person responsible for approving the edit is unaware of the information, a complex Math equation or some other such type that not every other editor would understand. It also removes the premise of the asumption of good faith . Will it lead to Flagged Revision wars? We have a lot of contentious areas on Wikipedia be it The Troubles or Palestine-Israel conflict, will POV pushers be allowed to veto what is added because it differs from their own personal opinion. And who is going to appoint the reviewers? Can we be sure that they will truly be impartial or as stated above re a Math equation enough knowledge? For these reason, I believe this is a bad idea, which has the potential to drive away a number of existing editors, and also scare away potential new ones. BigDunc^Talk 13:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Dunc, seeing as I've had several of my articles tagged with a deletion notice simply because a particular editor was not familiar with the historical person I had written about. I too, say NO to flagged revisions--jeanne (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A straw pole is taking place here you can add your disapproval on it if you wish. BigDunc^Talk 14:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Article on Italian band

Hi Dunc, Jeanne here. I'd like some advice from you, please. I would like to create an article on the successful Italian Latin-pop group Los Locos. They have had many hit singles, two platinum albums, etc., so notability is easily established. The problem, however, is which sources can be used? I am afraid to write the article, which will take up a lot of my time, what with the discography,etc., and I don't want it to be hit with a speedy deletion tag, as I've noticed so many articles on bands do seem to be targetted for deletion. Do you know which sources meet Wikipedia criteria for musical groups? A Google search on the band just comes up with a lot of Italian sites which list their songs, albums, engagement dates, and so on. I'm really hesitant to do the article, but they are an extremely popular group here, and have had enormous success with several of their songs, especially in the 1990s. They are constantly on tv as well. Thanks, Dunc.--jeanne (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:BAND it should explain it better than I could. Also a good pointer is if they have an entry on the Italian wikipedia. I would imagine if they aren't notable enough for the Italian they wont be here. BigDunc^Talk 09:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, they do meet the WP:Band criteria of notability, by dint of having had many singles in the charts, some of which achieved enormous success, and even spawned a dance craze (The Macarena); two Platinum albums, also one of their songs is the theme of a popular Italian tv programme. However, seeing as they do not have an article on Italian Wikipeda, I suppose it would be advisable for me to hold off creating the article until someone else does it for the Italian Wikipedia. What I'm afraid of is the lack of references available. They just aren't very credible, although I personally can vouch for the group's fame as I live in Italy and see/hear them all the time. I just don't have the right sources to back up my claims. I think I'll wait a wee bit. Thanks for your help and prompt reply.--jeanne (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

01C

Thank'ee much for joining! Your request has been approved and you are now a proud member of Wikipedia's only counter-vandalism cabal! Want a userbox to go along with it? (Also, we've got an InvisionFree board; check the cabal page.) 21655 ^{ταλκ/01ҁ} 20:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

vista, vista damn that bloody vista!

hi bigdunc, just a personal thanx for your suggestions, hope to find a way to use my zen with me 'puter, why is there not a universal language for machines? it's just binary after all! BTW is that a tesseract on your userpage?Perry-mankster (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem just a pity you didn't get it sorted and it sure is a tesseract puts me in a trance lol. BigDunc^Talk 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

Look, I'm not trying to offend you or anything and naturally its not my intention to be 'unhelpful', but I'm begging you to comment helpfully on the talk page. You may not agree with me, but at least try to formulate some sort of defense rather than ignoring and reverting me and the issue at hand. NewIreland2009 (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not reverted you on the article you asked about sources I told you what the policy was. I have not given any opinion on what you added to the article. BigDunc^Talk 21:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that is essentially unhelpful. In fairness, if your not going to analyse the individual situation (I'm sure that the policy works well in other areas) then really, whats the point in posting at all? I'm not trying to be offensive but in fairness I thought your post was unhelpful. NewIreland2009 (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Knowing policy is never unhelpful you said you didn't feel that a source was required, but that doesn't matter if one is asked for then it must be produced. This is wikipedia policy. I am offering you some advice as new editors often find themselves blocked because they were not aware of policy. Now in my opinion it seems you have come to wikipedia with a preconcieved idea about editors based on what your friend has told you, and your comments can be read as provocative. The vast majority of editors here are editing with good intentons read assume good faith and happy editing. BigDunc^Talk 22:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you possible expect me to assume good faith when you constantly revert me and accuse me of being a troll? NewIreland2009 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I've reported you on ANI. NewIreland2009 (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats good thanks admin eyes are needed. BigDunc^Talk 22:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have commented on the deplorable conduct and continuations personal attacks by NewIreland2009. Admin eyes are definitely welcome. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to wait before commenting myself but a new editor going straight to ani their friend has told them a lot pity nothing on policy. BigDunc^Talk 22:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a friend who left wikipedia in complete frustration after spending over a year editing Irish related articles. I haven't seen anything here to change my mind. And yet still, my question goes unanswered. I guess its easier to accuse someone of being a troll and of vandalism than trying to understand what they are actually saying. I probably shouldn't get so worked up, but when met with passive aggressiveness there seems no other choice other than to be aggressive. I am what you make me unfortunately. NewIreland2009 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"passive aggressiveness"? "I am what you make me unfortunately." We are all responsible for our own actions, the They made me do it defence dose not work here. Please remain civil. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that the same standards are applied to more established users than for me. Still, my question left unanswered. NewIreland2009 (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your question? BigDunc^Talk 22:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Its on the Michael Collins talk page. People were more concerned with me reverting and namecalling than attempting to see where I'm coming from. And then I'm told to assume good faith. This is what I mean when I say 'you are what you make me.' NewIreland2009 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it the question that I answered above and on the article page? BigDunc^Talk 23:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to clarify. I've already stated that the policy works well, but you don't seem to recognise that I recognise this. My point is that on this particular case, the policy does not apply - a la my Easter Rising example.

Citations, as far as I'm aware is for information that isn't in the broad knowledge arena or for something that isn't widely discussed in the major texts of a subject - every book that deals with the Irish Civil war deals with the makeup of the Free State army, hence why providing a source is un-necessary. In fact, its so easily looked up by anyone who knows anything of the subject that it doesn't require a citation. A citation would, for example, be needed if somone claimed that Collins ordered the assassination of Sir Henry Wilson (Which is disputed by most historians), but would not, for example, be needed to assert that the Easter Rising happened in 1916, or that Countess Markievicz occupied St. Stephens Green during the Easter Rising or the Roger Casement was captured by the British etc. etc.

This point was not dealt with, instead I was barraged with wiki policy, and no attempt to discuss this was ever made.

Can you now see that the policy you mention does not apply to the case at hand (Which I've been trying to tell you) And also, just for the record, I have provided a source, just don't believe that a citation is needed on the article. If we started doing this we would be offering citations for every line in the Michael Collins article for Christs' sake. NewIreland2009 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It is simple the policy applies in all cases you can't pick and choose when it should be implemented. An editor from Outer Mongolia might not have any books on Collins or the Free State Army and all editors must be catered for with regarding to verifiable and reliably sourced text. BigDunc^Talk 10:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol. You didn't listen to a word I typed. Can you not see that there are clearly times when the policy isn't implemented? Are you citing what your typing now? If you actually thought about what you typed just there, you'd realise its a self contradictory statement - 'the policy applies at all times' - it very clearly doesn't. Which is why widely known facts don't get cited all the time. I'm guessing your one of these policy wonks so I'm just going to leave it at this - I'm sure your knowledge of wiki law will put me to shame!! NewIreland2009 (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I will not be repling to you on this matter anymore, if you want to ignore policy so be it end of. BigDunc^Talk 12:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

the tesseract keeps moving...feeeeeeeling sleeeeeeeeeeepy...

wotcha bigdunc, listening to 'all that glitters' - death in vegas as i type, zen working well, ended up using my pop's xp laptop to install the drivers & media s/w, then used a flash drive to transfer the music files from my laptop to it. have started installing a virtual machine on my laptop, so that i don't need to keep borrowing my pop's - aaahhh have just floated into some jazz (nich)...Perry-mankster (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy days mate enjoy. BigDunc^Talk 01:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of possible libel

Dunc, I just removed lots of possibly libelous statements about this living person:Elisabetta Gregoraci, who happens to be married to one of the richest men in Italy. The statements were all sourced but I removed them anyway, as they also involved a couple of Italian politicians. Was I right to remove the stuff, although referenced? To me, it appeared inflammatory.--jeanne (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you were right myself but I would bring it up here to get a more informed opinion BLP's are a potential minefield, so I think we should always air on the side of caution. BigDunc^Talk 20:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have just reported it. To me, the material was inflammatory and highly defamatory!--jeanne (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ian Paisley

I reverted; because the title in that part of the infobox doesn't indicate he's still in the role. The role doesn't say he's an incumbent, unlike his MP box. When you changed it to retired the box read "Retired, 2007-2008" etc. Not what I assume you intended! --Blowdart | ^talk 17:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah my bad I looked at others boxes, Tony Blair, after you did and spotted my mistake thanks. BigDunc^Talk 17:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Block renewed

I've renewed your block for one week for the extreme incivility shown here. You already know that kind of language is unacceptable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• D of P, saying "why would a bunch of jumped up little pricks undo the actions of another even when it breaches the policies they are supposed to uphold a fucking joke the lot of you, block away" sounds to me more like someone who is extremely angry, rather than a person who thinks Wikipedia's admins are "a bunch of jumped up little pricks" - don't you aggree. In moments of blind anger, I have often had similar thoughts myself, then I look again at all the admin friends I have, and realise that is not the case. C'mon a weeks block for that? This is a good content man - he is cooled off already, I suspect, and we all know cooling off blocks are not advised. Lift it now and let's forget about it. Giano (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with much troubles material - from what I can see, BigDunc has (or rather had) a clean block log until this current issue. A week does seem long for a first block, and the language does seem explosive rather than malicious to me. Again I note I am a newbie to the troubles material. Is there a link to where the immediate antecedent is? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, Dunc is the best person to answer that, and one of your clerks has now prevented him doing that (20:50, 6 February 2009 Tznkai (Talk | contribs) changed block settings for BigDunc (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2009-02-13T19:55:11Z (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Restoring block terms - BigDunc has proven unwilling to change problematic language/behavior) ) as he seems to have upset some Arbs. This sort of thing is not good. Giano (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to overturn this block, but I'd like to hear from the blocking admins first with their reasons in case there is more than meets the eye. Please explain yourselves. We don't block for potty mouth. Jehochman ^Talk 00:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Talk about OTT, the guy had a clean rap sheet until yesterday and then got a very debatable block for a minor infraction. Have a little perspective and unblock the guy.--Vintagekits (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

From the very little contact I've had with Big Dunc he has always been very helpful and civil. Getting upset is not a crime, please give the guy a break. Titch Tucker (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread

Giano also started an ANI thread ( [1] ) without leaving notice to blocking admins here. Discussion should probably be held there so it's in one place.

IMHO the reblock violated the longstanding policy that we allow reasonable venting by blocked users on their talk page. Reblocking for minor or moderate venting on their talk page runs the risk of escalating any block into a vicious cycle and driving editors away from the project, which is not the intent of blocking policy. Admins are supposed to calm the situation and de-escalate - in this particular type of circumstance it escalates rather than calms things down to reblock like this.

Had BigDunc gone from venting to all out attacks on individual users, or kept the abuse up for days, or block evaded and posted threats or abuse elsewhere, then a reblock would be appropriate. The tolerance for venting is not unlimited. But what BigDunc seems to have actually done is not across the line.

This is not in any way a minimization of BigDunc's abusive response - he clearly broached WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. BigDunc - while I understand your frustration, this was rude and inappropriate. Please don't do that again, it degrades the whole community every time someone acts that way on-wiki. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"Please don't do that again". Sometimes you just have to laugh at this place. MickMacNee (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors who are as hard-working and diligent as BigDunc should be praised for the time they have dedicated to Wikipedia, writing and editing articles, removing vandalism, helping others, yet when he gets frustrated, as we all do on occasion, he's punished like a schoolboy. Someone once used abusive and obscene language towards me, and that editor was not blocked. This blocking of BigDunc is wrong and can only damage the Wikipedia community by depriving us of a very good editor for one week. I say, unblock him.--jeanne (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Block reduced to original 48 hours

Per ANI discussion - I have reduced your block duration to the original expiration 48 hours after the first block. I have also restored your ability to edit your talk page here.

It is longstanding Wikipedia policy that we allow blocked editors to vent about being blocked, without that being considered automatic additional abusive behavior warranting further blocking. People get frustrated lash out. We understand that. It's considered best practice to let them do that without piling on further penalties for their angry reaction.

With that said... we expect users to participate in a civil and polite manner and avoid personal attacks on each other. We expect users, even recently blocked users, to behave in an adult and civil manner towards each other. That we understand that people sometimes don't, and tolerate some of that, doesn't mean that such abuses are OK. What you did was wrong. It directly led to more upset people and more drama and problems. It lowered the standard of discussion and lessened the value of the whole Wikipedia community to lash out like that. Rude behavior is a real problem, and it did not help that you did it.

Your block has been shortened to the original short length out of an assumption of good faith. That assumption is that you will get over this and return to being a positive member of Wikipedia's community, a positive contributor, and go back to doing the sort of good work you've done here for some time. I do not expect you to have a magic warm feeling about the block being reduced back down or the talk page editing lock being removed - you're probably upset and will probably still be upset tomorrow and the day after and next week.

But I hope that you can see that your response was wrong, and hurtful to others, and destructive. I hope that you can rapidly get past the nastyness and get back to being a friendly cooperative Wikipedia editor. If you need to take a few days away on your own, do so. The remainder of the 48 hr block will expire pretty quickly. You may feel better if you take a bit more time.

I don't think you'll ever come to like what happened, but hopefully you will move past it. I hope you are able to, and don't dissapoint my hope and faith that you can put it behind you. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dunc: I don't know if you'd prefer this in an email or here, but it's 4:00 am, tact is not my strong point. CUT IT OUT NOW. I understand you're upset. However, let's not dig a hole any deeper here, ok? You're not doing yourself any good here. If you need someone to vent at, my email is open (I'm not on WP much, I was TRYING to be on break), and I'll listen. But what you're doing is counterproductive. SirFozzie (talk) 09:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I am going to take a couple of days away from wiki and thank everyone for the contributions made here and ani it was a brain explosion due to utter frustration, and wont happen again. BigDunc^Talk 09:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Even 48 hours for affronting an Admin, in a moment of frustration, is ridiculous. I hope though Tzkai has learn that he cannot impose these Draconian sentences at a whim (even if he is the Arb's clerk) it does not make him a one instant justice dispenser. Furthermore why was this block not posted on ANI, properly - rather than kept buried away? Giano (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

please tell me

Hi, I see when your username appears on someone's talkpage the fonts are very colorful etc. Kindly tell how you manage to do this...please reply on my talk page...thanks Jon Ascton (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Dunc. I'll be back in a few weeks time fighting fit. I'm as tough as old boots. Thanks again. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats good see you then. BigDunc^Talk 17:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Armagh

Hello BigDunc. On the Armagh page there is no consensus for the use of CE. I've checked the edit history and the article used the AD nomenclature for about two years until this was changed in August last year to CE. There was no debate at the time of the change, nor has there been any since, until an IP editor recently reverted to the orginal usage. In fact, the editor didn't restore the precise original usage, instead preferring to abandon both AD and CE, which to me seems a very effective compromise. LevenBoy (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Trolls

In future, I shall quickly delete any trollish message from my talk page, sans mercy. They are really annoying, though. Most of the trolls are probably just bored high-school kids, thinking they are being clever.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks. I'll download it.--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 11:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. BigDunc^Talk 18:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Another trip down memory lane

Dunc, I have just read your latest article. Peter Mark hairdresser's! God does that bring back memories of Dublin in the 1980s. I wonder if anyone will write articles on The Dandelion Market, Afro Spot club on Fleet Street, Captain Americas, or the American Connection hamburger joint on 101 Talbot Street? I feel as if I've been transported back in time--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember them well especially The Dandelion Market, the whole building of the Stephens Green Centre was done with a lot of back handers and handshakes by politicians. BigDunc^Talk 17:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, remember that Viking cemetery that they destroyed just to put up an ugly office block?! Disgraceful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That was this another fine mess made by the Irish Government. BigDunc^Talk 19:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sidekick 4

Hey I was wondering if you had any info about a new Sidekick coming up (sidekick is a phone that is avalible in t-mobile stores) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tj1224 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I dont apart from what a google search returns. Try here someone might be able to help. BigDunc^Talk 17:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks2

many thanks for your message, I was discussing the page, or related content, and that was the rationale for placing it there. I hope the wiki community is keen to incorporate the pages offered into its corpus of work, and that things will progress from there cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anguslambkin (talk • contribs)

Your comments

I have raised comments you made in a past discussion here. To insure that I did not misrepresent you and your opinions, could you please look them over, and if you consider them inappropriate please let me know and I’ll strike them from my post. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 19:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Titch Tucker

I have sad news for you. I have just read on his talk page that Titch Tucker has died. His son posted the message. I was hoping he was on his way to recovery. This is so sad.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Talk:Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Protected_again. Black Kite 10:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worrie about it

Dunc a chara, listen this BS dose not faze me. Just carry on editing and ignore it thats what I'm doing. Regards --Domer48_'fenian' 14:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for the WP:Civility and WP:NPA violations here and here. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

.

Piss poor block by an admin just waiting for an excuse after his last piss poor block of you was laughed off ANI. O Fenian (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Your dead right mate this was brought to admin attention yet the attacks continued see his last post on ani yet I loose the head and my old friend appears to block great work Deacon. BigDunc^Talk 13:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

He has now blocked the aggressor, so I will strike through my earlier comment. However I feel if instead of a rush to judgement he had investigated the situation fully, this could have been avoided. I am your sockpuppet apparently, so I must be talking to myself now!! O Fenian (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Seen that you have to laugh. BigDunc^Talk 14:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I did! Oh, I mean we did! Oh bugger, I'm/we're all confused now. O Fenian (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*. And for the record, O Fenian is  Unrelated to Big Dunc - Alison ^❤ 22:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You, NewIreland, and ANI

I got your note on my talk page. I'm in the process of disengaging from WP, and in any case I've promised myself that I wouldn't post to the ANI cesspool anymore. I have no opinion on your block, as I have not, and will not, spent any time looking into the particulars. Maybe it was valid, maybe not; I have noticed you sometimes let trolls push your buttons; you might want to completely ignore them in future, instead of responding.

Feel free to link to this response wherever you think it might do the most good:

Although he's not lily white, BigDunc appears to me, from some brief previous interactions with him, to be interested in constructively creating an encyclopedia. NewIreland2009, from some brief previous interactions with him, does not appear to be interested in anything except fighting, has admitted to as much, and is inexplicably not blocked indef yet. Perhaps I should have done so instead of the 24 hour block I gave a while ago; I'd assumed he wouldn't change, but figured he ought to get one chance to do so. The obvious solution, of course, is to remedy that, and block NewIreland2009 indefinitely. Whether this obvious step is taken is up to those of you who are interested in touching this entire area with a 10 foot pole. That doesn't include me. --barneca (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assesment of the situation like I said on ANI I made the comment for affect to see would a block come my way by using the same term used by NewIreland2009 and 2 days after it was brought to admin attention. BigDunc^Talk 17:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc, I just saw your stramash at AN/I. Next time drop me a message; I have great respect for you as an editor and I could have helped you. Looks like it's all sorted this time. --John (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much John for you support, hopefully this will be the end of it but if need be I will drop by your page. BigDunc^Talk 17:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Djbooth.net

there is a site where you can listen to hiphop music for free —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tj1224 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Image

Hello Dunc, I notice you have created articles on films. How does one go about uploading an image of the film? I have it scanned onto my computer, but can upload it to the article? Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry took a while to get back to you have been very busy lately, It is the same process as you have been using for the photos on your talk page unless I am mis-understanding the question. BigDunc^Talk 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I was wondering if it's not violating copyright.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers!

That revert I made was an error, so thanks for spotting that one. Not sure how it happened actually, I did this once before using rollback... Kernel Saunters (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No harm no foul. BigDunc^Talk 19:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of talk-page comments

Please don't remove editor's comments from their own talk page; unless the post is an attempted WP:OUTING it's considered extremely bad form (see WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments). Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 10:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed a personal attack by an IP address not from Setanta, how do you know that the IP is who they claim they are? If he wants to attack editors at least let him sign in. BigDunc^Talk 13:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't know, but if it's not from Setanta and he wants it removed, it's probably best to let him do it. If it is (assuming good faith from the signature), I agree the post isn't particularly polite and you could always post to his talk-page requesting him to remove or rephrase it if you find it offensive, but as it's apparently a response to a post you left over two months ago, it seems to me that the least drama-inducing solution all round would be to just ignore it. EyeSerene^talk 13:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not a post to anything I posted it was a reply to Domer, all I saw was an IP responding to something 10 weeks old with an attack so I removed it. We are not to know if the IP is Setanta and if it is him is he using the IP to avoid scrutiny as it is editing in The Troubles field. BigDunc^Talk 14:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're quite right the IP wasn't replying to you - I posted the same original message to both you and Domer, and got mixed up in my reply above. Apologies for that :P

Re the IP editing elsewhere, if it is Setanta there are perfectly legitimate reasons for using alternative accounts per WP:SOCK#LEGIT, but if it's disruptive there are also provisions under normal WP rules and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies to deal with that. WP:ANI would probably be the place to go if you have concerns. EyeSerene^talk 15:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user pages Maen. K. A. (talk)

And Again :-) Maen. K. A. (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your very welcome also thanks for doing same on my page. BigDunc^Talk 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome Back

Oh, welcome back, Dunc. It's nice to have you amongst us again.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jeanne but only a flying visit still have a ton of projects and assignments to do just have a break so popped in for a bit, role on the finals so I can get back to the real work on wiki :-) BigDunc^Talk 19:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! You are missed here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Dunc,I wish to thank you for archiving my talk page. It looks very tidy and less cumbersome. I hadn't realised how long it had become! Thanks again. Cheers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reverting the vandalism on my user page. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome. BigDunc^Talk 19:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Suavv magazine Page

Hey BigDunc, I made a mistake and saved my article with some of the changes missing. When i went and pasted the new article it hit me with a Speedy Deletion. Is there a way to get this off? I am still new at this and trying to figure it out. Please help. I did change the user name or rather put in the request. I see where that conflict was at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suavv (talk • contribs) 20:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You can place a {{hangon}} template on the article and make your case on the talk page. BigDunc^Talk 20:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of article.

Hey BigDunc,

From the original message for the magazines assumed G11 violation, the entire entry was rewritten to follow the same format of other magazines that are on Wikipedia. I re-read through the entry and nothing sounds like advertising. The warning that i received is because I cut the entire entry out and pasted a new article in. Right after doing that I received the warning. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suavv (talk • contribs) 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sister Sin

If you can't find sources, you're not looking very hard. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? MySpace their own web site Last Fm, Lyricsmania, hardly what I would call reliable sources and to my question how do they meet WP:BAND? BigDunc^Talk 16:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, there's more than one page in a Google search. Perhaps you'd like to try a search for "Sister Sin" interview. Come on man, you're driving off a newbie without going through the minimum effort of looking for sources. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Way to assume good faith, I still don't see how this is a notable band per criteria that is used for bands. BigDunc^Talk 16:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not about bad faith. It's about your responsibilities as a newpage patroller. Did you really make a serious effort to find sources? Did you for instance notice that the band had toured in the US for three months? That they had an album with a major indie label? When you tag for speedy deletion an article that was created by a newbie just a few minutes earlier, you have a responsibility to do this. Getting new editors to stick around is important, giving them the benefit of the doubt is important, trying to help them out is important. Nothing says "fuck you" like an aggressive use of speedy deletion. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Again nice assumption of good faith, I checked and I cant find anything that makes this band notable. You are assuming I just tagged the article to drive off a newbie which is a crock of shit, With regard to the 12 points in wp:band IMO they fail unless you can prove otherwise. When I tag an article I do a search first and compare the results with policy I did that and they fail simple. I think maybe an AfD is called for unless you have sources that prove notability have you? BigDunc^Talk 16:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm even more worried if you found that info and still decided to tag it. I don't think you fully appreciate the damage caused by dubious speedy tagging. It drives off newbies every day: I do a lot of the deletions on CAT:CSD and I see that frustration all the time. Heck, it even turns away some of our finest contributors. You could have contacted the editor, used a {{notability}} tag, sent the article to AfD, asked this question before requesting the speedy deletion. All of these options would have been just as effective. It's clear that you did not intentionally drive off the newbie. I'm just telling you that you nevertheless did. Actually, here's an interesting test: send the article to AfD and watch it close as keep. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the 3rd time I will ask maybe you will answer instead of patronising how do this band meet the criteria set out in WP:BAND BigDunc^Talk 18:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Be stubborn if you wish. Bottom line: that kind of knee-jerk tagging hurts the project. You're free to believe otherwise and continue tagging away while others scramble to tell newbies that we still value and respect their contributions. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your question. I found the sources from a Google News search. Searching for "Sister Sin" brought back a load of stuff unrelated to the band so I looked for information on Allmusic and having found the titles of their albums, searched for "Sister Sin" plus the album titles, which brought back more specific results. I often also find that for bands with names that are difficult to search for because they bring back a lot of unrelated hits (which is very common), if you can find the name of the singer or one of the main musicians, for example, searching for that can lead to relevant results. Articles on bands generally mention the names of the band members or titles of releases, so these are useful search terms.--Michig (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your informative reply it was very helpful unlike the admin above who seemed to be out to point score and held back his rational till AfD started as you can see I asked him 3 times to explain his rational which he refused, yet again thanks and good work. BigDunc^Talk 19:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For queries on the notability guidelines themselves the talk page (Wikipedia Talk:Notability (music) is the place. I'm not aware of a project specifically for discussing the notability of individual bands. These discussions essentially take place on the article talk pages and in deletion discussions. To get a verdict on whether or not a source is reliable, you can try Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You could also discuss notability concerns on the talk page of a project that the article belongs to (as indicated on the article's talk page). Members of those specific projects may be well placed to check for or find relevant sources to demonstrate notability, or may have the knowledge to advise that a band/artist isn't notable.--Michig (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Again thanks for your help. BigDunc^Talk 20:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

CSD A7

Now, I am not going to condone Pascal's behavior above, I found it to be as you indicate a little patronizing and rude... but I agree with him that the band is not eligible for CSD per criteria A7. You keep pointing to WP:BAND. WP:BAND is not the criteria used for CSD. A7 only requires a claim of significance or importance. The article does not have to prove said importance/significance, only make a viable claim to it. This article did so. The claim that the group signed with a major indie label is such a claim---is it one that will save it from deletion? No. But the criteria A7 doesn't require that the article be of sufficeint quality to avoid deletion at AFD, but only makes a claim to importance/significance. This is, by design, a much lower threshold than BAND or WP:N. The reason why is to give the author a chance to salvage the article... perhaps there is more to the story that we don't know about? Perhaps there is something that does in fact make it notable. By sending it to AFD or PROD, you give the author a chance to salvage the article. CSD'ing it does bite.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Spartacus I was under the wrong impression that WP:BAND could be used for speedy deletion but having read the criteria for Speedy again I now see it is only a claim needs to be made, thanks for the feedback but as an admin and having asked Pascal 3 times about the article I feel they could have been more helpful and getting no reply I did send to AfD which thanks to the sources found by Michig I have now struck my delete. Could this AfD be closed now or does it have to run it's course? Thanks again for the info and such matters wont arise again. BigDunc^Talk 09:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

NP... I'll try to remember to take a look at the AFD this evening when I have more time... I just hopped on for a quick moment... depending on the voting the AFD can be closed. (You could even do so if there are no other deletes.) You might be interested in taking at look at Why I hate Speedy Deleters and The Field guide to proper speedy deletion.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Brian Nelson (Double agent)

I should be grateful if you would self revert you moving of the above article. I started the article under the name as above. Therefore you rationale that the move was not discussed cannot hold. I am quite happy to discuss any moves but I am not motivated to continue editing under a title that does not adequately describe his notability. This is not as simple as John Gregg (UDA) - Nelson was a British Agent first, if not foremost. When I have done my bit, do what you want. Lucian Sunday (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Double agent is an ambiguous term, I am open for discussion about an alternate title on the article talk page. BigDunc^Talk 18:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat. Briish Army Agent? Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Editors using same computer

Hello Dunc, my daughter has recently become a registered Wikipedian. As we have only one computer in the house, how can we avoid the potential accusation of sock-puppetry? She is not interested in the same type of articles as me; her main interests are Zack Efron and uploading images to existing articles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Each of you uses your own username. Kittybrewster ☎ 05:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Kitty is right also see WP:FAMILY BigDunc^Talk 09:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kitty and Dunc. It's not likely we'll be editing the same articles;in the event that we do, I'll be sure to inform the other editors that she's my daughter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Harthill

I would be grateful if you could stop erasing all evidence of Harthill's "culture" heading. Its a well known fact that Harthill has a staunch Orange community, and this is the only reason I felt it necessary to edit the article. I hope you can find it with your self to put all childish and petty feelings aside and let the article be the way I think you will find most Harthill residents want it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by West Lothian Unionist (talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Haven't a clue what you are talking about a diff would be nice. BigDunc^Talk 11:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Diff ;) O Fenian (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And then there was Diff ;) --Domer48_'fenian' 11:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Aargh!!!

I hate to say this, but last night I wrote out a HUGE review of your CSD edits, when I went to save it, I lost it all! So, let me go ahead and summarize what I had cited in detail. First, your work has shown continuous improvement over the past three months. Your most recent work has been extremely solid, but going back a few months andthere are some issues.

1) The thing that stand out the most was that you had some G1 articles tagged incorrectly. G1 does not apply to hoaxes or implausible theories. If an article has complete nonsense about some political conspiracy theory, it is not patent nonsense. Basically, if you can make heads or tales of the article, even if is garbage, it is not nonsense. Patent Nonsense is not "George Washington was a space alien from another planet who came to lead an impoverish people to financial freedom." That may be nonsense, but it is not patent nonsense. Patent nonsense is, "George Washington is an alien, sponges wear red pants, I like daisies, my pants, Yankees suck." Not only is it nonsense, but you couldn't even prentend to make sense of it. The first one is nonsense, but at least you know what the subject is about. Patent nonsense is also "ASIOUDFKJ askjdhkajsqwe kajshdkajsd".

2) When you tag an article G10, make sure you blank the page. There is no reason to leave an attack apge active where a wiki clone or search engine might find it. An admin should be able to look at the history to confirm that it was in fact an attack page.

3) There was an article about 6 weeks ago where you kept tagging an article as G7, on a page that the author blanked. Another editor kept undoing you and that authors edits. You finally made a note as your edit summary that blanking a page by a sole author = request for speedy deletion. That would have been an ideal time to educate the other user and let them know that in a personal note.

4) There were a few pages that you tagged A7, but were attack pages. If a page is an attack page, make sure you label it as such. Some people might work attack pages before A7's.

5) You take a lot of articles as advertising/spam, advertising/spam is probably one that I should do a more detailed check on, but it is over used in my opinion. The line between blatant advertising/spam, and a good start article is a very fine line.

6) There was also one, about 2 or 2 and half months ago (if I remember correctly) where you nominated an article A7 that was about a fictional character. A7 does not apply to fictional characters.

7)There was another one that you nomed G1 as patent nonsense, it was deleted A7, but was deleted incorrectly. It was a piece of fiction, that possibly could have been labeled G3. Works of fiction are not G1 candidates... nor are they A7 candidates. In this case, the admin who deleted the article also made a mistake.

Again, you work this past month shows a significant improvement over what you were doing a few months ago. I encourage you to keep up the work, your work has definitely shown improvement lately.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Disclaimer, while I am pretty sure the above comments all related to you, I didn't go through and reconfirm them... I did the above based upon my memory of my review of your edits and a quick secondary review to refresh my memory.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for spending your time going over them for me it is much appreciated and I will take on board your comments. BigDunc^Talk 16:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Just wow!

I'm surprised at you for tagging the four dental school articles created by Skyykj. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That was an error on my behalf due to the one hour time change with GMT, when I tagged them I thought they had been posted over an hour with no content on them. BigDunc^Talk 08:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okie...no harm done. I was just taken aback by such a strong response to what was clearly an act of non-vandalism, despite the editor having a red name. Have a great day! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No problems. BigDunc^Talk 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Also by the way it wasn't tagged as vandalism but as A3 with no content. BigDunc^Talk 16:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No flagged revisions category up for deletion

The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rakt

Thanks, I'll take a look. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Roberts (murderer)

As you have contested the merge/redirect I have put it up for discussion. The reason I feel the information should be contained within Shepherd's Bush Murders is per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BIO1E. I suggest you acquaint yourself with those guidelines (and the recent amendments) if you wish to make a comment on the AfD. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Going well isn't it? Might finally have that article finished by tomorrow, hope the exams and suchlike are going ok. Don't let the bastards grind you down ;) 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

but that's what I'm here for isn't it?Traditional unionist (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah TU back amongst the reprobates I see how are you? ONiH I look forward to your new article I'm sure it will be a good informative read. Also thesis writing is a major pain in the arse but nearly there. BigDunc^Talk 18:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message while I was banned. I decided just to enjoy the holiday and didn't bother with any suggestions to Admins. Mooretwin (talk) 09:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No problems. BigDunc^Talk 19:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Edward Lehman

Just FYI, removed your PROD here. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think it needs more eyes than PROD so took it to AfD. Not watching here, but am watching AfD StarM 23:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Neville Borton

Thanks for your prompting. I have added information and references - does this seem better? Or still dubious? Regards.Blarcrean (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources provided indicate some notability any questions just ask me here or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and an editor will be along to give you any advice you need happy editing. BigDunc^Talk 19:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved conversation

I have moved the conversation to my talk page. I didn't read your guidelines before, sorry. AvN 11:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BigDunc. You have new messages at Antivenin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AvN 11:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Irving Chais

Hi BigDunc.
I see you placed a {{notability}} tag on Irving Chais, which I have removed after adding a number of citations (wholesale, rather than in support of any biographical details), moving them from the talk page to the main article. If you still believe that the notability guidelines have not been adequately addressed, please reinsert the template and (if you feel so inclined) let me know what elements of those guidelines seem not to be satisfied.
Regards, Bongomatic 12:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

No I was intending to remove it when I saw you add the sources, but had to nip out but sorted now. BigDunc^Talk 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Balanced ball article continues ..

Hi BigDunc,

I'd like to upload the picture to my article. How can I get permission for uploading pictures on wiki web ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slando (talk • contribs) 11:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Slando if you look at the panel on the left hand side of your screen under Toolbox you will see a link Upload file, click that and follow the instructions it is fairly easy if the work you are uploading is your own but can get messy if it is copyrighted as it will get deleted. BigDunc^Talk 11:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you , this picture is all mine, so it is ok. I have found this menu, but it seems I don't have sufficient permission to upload pictures. Who can give me this permission ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slando (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ebony Road

Hi Yes, here are the references: http://ebonyroad.blogspot.com/ http://addymiller.blogspot.com/ (the film is mentioned)

The film will be mentioned in next weeks park news as well as on 'Brit Films' http://www.britfilms.com/ and imdb. Please just wait a few weeks and then you will see thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangleys (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Balanced ball article problem

Hi BigDunc,

I've finally finish writing the article, about my game. You can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_ball It was marked like advertisement, but my point of view is as much neutral as it can be. There is not any product advertisement and the game is completely free. Can you give me some suggestions, what can I do about that ? --Slando (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Slando

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Written On Her

I deleted the article's history itself, so essentially it was a little bit of both. Cirt (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. rootology (C)(T) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Images

Hi Dunc, Jeanne here. I've a question for you. One of the photos I placed on my user page has a tag which says that it is a candidate for Commons and that anyone can upload it there. Is it OK if I, as the original uploader, go ahead and upload it to Commons or should I wait for another editor to do it? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Jeanne you can upload it if you want no need to wait for someone else to do it. BigDunc^Talk 12:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Dunc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Date of birth missing (living people) vs Year of birth missing (living people)

Please read instructions in Category:Date of birth missing (living people) carefully. This category is for use in talk pages only. For articles pages use Category:Year of birth missing (living people) instead. You may have to read WP:BLP as well. The exact date of birth of many living people is a sensitive personal data. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do easy mistake to make. BigDunc^Talk 09:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Better late than never

BOOM!!!!!!. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Took your time better be worth the wait ;-) BigDunc^Talk 12:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think so ;) PC doesn't like that 400% formatting :( 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good article ONiH up to your usual standard. BigDunc^Talk 13:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I see someone already has seen fit to fuck about with it without realising that I don't put any information into an article that isn't in the sources. Speculation my fucking arse! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Seen that ah sure they will learn if it is in one of your articles then you can bet it is properly sourced. BigDunc^Talk 13:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Zup! im raffleclone

Zup! im raffleclone (we have not met)! i waz just searchin' wikipedia. Plz tell peoples to chech out my page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raffleclone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffleclone (talk • contribs) 01:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you make this revert? Its under discussion on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.107.236 (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss BigDunc^Talk 14:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Could you have a look

Hi - According to Martin C. Strong's The Great Rock Discography, which is generally very reliable, there was only one album credited to "Duane & Gregg Allman" (as opposed to The Allman Brothers band), called Duane & Gregg Allman, recorded in 1968 and released in 1973 (Polydor 2310 235 / Bold 33-301), so the article looks correct and the rateyourmusic release date looks wrong. Discogs.com (http://www.discogs.com/Duane-Allman-Gregg-Allman-Duane-Greg-Allman/release/1378013) has the release date as 1972, so it could be either one. Hope that answers your question.--Michig (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Your more than welcome one of the good guys as I said let the opposers have the balls to do the same, but I wont hold my breath BigDunc^Talk 20:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist organization ??

> Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be > written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to ETA appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may > have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. BigDuncTalk 07:39, 20 > May 2009 (UTC)

Dear BigDunc, thank you very much for your comments regarding the "terrorist" label for ETA. I can understand Wikipedia try to get a neutral point. But to be honest, we have to describe this organization as a terrorist because it uses this kind of methodology. This word doesn't try to be pejorative but to define the type of acts. On the other hand, we can find a lot of different examples in wikipedia describing 9/11 attacks and suicide pilots as terrorists. It looks like a double standard in this issue.n--Jlbezares (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of the lead section of Al-Qaeda or Provisional Irish Republican Army or Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Notice that that we do not give them the "terrorist" label either, why should ETA be different? Rockpocket 02:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason why (the article about) ETA should be different. Sarah777 (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BigDunc. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

LOLZ

Uncanny timing. O Fenian (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just removed my post, no edit conflict :) BigDunc^Talk 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)