User talk:BigDunc/Archive 8

Protection 2

I've temporarily fully-protected your talk page to give your fans a rest. Leave a note on my talk if you'd like it unprotected. Toddst1 (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's just one fan, actually. Let me know also if you want unprotection - it's useful in catching his socks, actually. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Same here Dunc (you can email me as well). I see things are same as it ever was... SirFozzie (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to semi-protect per BigDunc Toddst1 (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks all for reverting and protecting this page. BigDunc 23:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Next time leave me a message or an email and I will do it if I am on. Sorry for your trouble. --John (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Didyouseetheedit

I suggest you actually have a look at the edit I made, it is totally cited and simple and clear, I fail to see how you can have any good faith objection to what is a simple edit. Off2riorob (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the edit, could you please explain what you object to.

The mainstream political parties in the UK have all refused to engage with them. [1] [2] [3] Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

How you can say I am ignoring your requests is beyond me, as you can see by this edit that I made, I removed a comment that you said was original research especially to comply with your objections. Off2riorob (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you got any objections to this edit now? Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The first source can't find anywhere that says mainstream political parties refuse to engage the BNP the second one the link doesn't work and cant find anything in the third that backs up your claim. BigDunc 15:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the cites need refreshing.. this one is brown in the mirror [4] Brown says there..

"What message will it send to the rest of the world if Londoners give support to the racism and bigotry of the BNP this week.So at the ballot box on Thursday, remember this: the BNP is not a mainstream political party; theirs is an extremism trying to stir up hatred and division in communities.I know there are challenges in Britain that we must meet. I'm the first to say we've got more to do to tackle crime, strengthen our borders and show hard-working families we're on their side.But the BNP's simple slogans don't have the answers to these issues.Londoners and the rest of the British people know that backing the BNP is totally at odds with what it really means to be British - and the great British values the rest of us share, such as democracy and decency, freedom and fairness, tolerance and equality."

this is the Cameron one.. [5]

Cameron calls on voters to back anyone but the BNP.

"I hope nobody votes for the BNP. I would rather people voted for any other party," Mr Cameron told Sky News.

And clegs link is a radio interviw .... where he called the bnp a party of thugs, fascists."

There is plenty of comments there to support the fourteen words in the comment. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I will just point out again that when you're accused of OR, the best idea is generally not to carry on maintaining OR isn't OR. Especially when you've been pulled up on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You're interpreting sources to your own meanings, and unless you start listening I'll be happy to certify an RFC about this disruption. BigDunc 17:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your accusations are baseless. I have offered ideas, made available multiple variants and worked constructively towards consensus. Report me to whoever you like, in fact I look forward to defending myself against your accusations. I will defend myself rigorously.Off2riorob (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so there's no doubt

My suggestion that McAleese 'might be' British-Irish, was an honest one. I wasn't trying to stir up anything. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And it is the second time you have made it on that page. BigDunc 21:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It'll be the last, though. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Took a peek & noticed, the nationality for the current Irish prime minister is pipe-linked to Republic of Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well he was born in what wiki calls ROI. BigDunc 22:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just remembered. Recommend we pipe-link (McAleese's nationality) to Irish people, as I assume Northern Irish is out-of-the-question. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It sure is, her Nationality is Irish and her ethnicity is Irish. BigDunc 22:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've implimented the solution, with an explainatory 'edit summary'. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BigDunc, GoodDay. Mary McAleese is Irish, both by nationality and ethnicity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My talk

Keep it clear of the usual suspects if I'm not about please, which is likely given my brief time available. Either I've got no interest in what they say or I'll read it by checking the history, either way you've got full permission to keep it tidy. Especially as one has been asked not to post there...... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Will do. BigDunc 14:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

1RR BS

It did not take long to illustrate the BS that is 1RR. If it was editors from wp:IR it would be a whole different ball game. You get blocked for a week and did not go over 1RR, and here we have three reports [6] [7] [8] and all we get is excuses. Lets not forget, we supported the use of 1RR, but it was turned over because again one Admin could not bring themselves to block a sock abusing POV warrior. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Troubles Case

Please do not edit the Case page.[9] Only admins or ArbCom clerks should be making changes there. If it's any consolation though, the term "confusion" was not targeted towards you, it was simply intended to say that there was general confusion about the definition of 1RR. Hopefully now that things are nailed down in terms of wording, there won't be any further problems! --Elonka 03:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well will you clarify that you were the one that was confused o this issue and not me, you will have another admin coming along who knows nothing about what happened and start throwing out blocks. I have enough bad blocks on my log. BigDunc 09:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Where on the "Log of blocks, bans, and probations" does it say that "Only admins or ArbCom clerks should be making changes there." The answer is it does not and there is no confusion about that. Elonka if you have a problem with the comment, ask Dunc to remove it, while you ammend yours. Just don't come along with a rule which does not exist. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc, that was kind of the reason that I started the whole "addendum" thread on ANI, was to help clarify the point about 1RR. This has all now been added to the bottom of the Case page, as well as to the {{Troubles restriction}} template, so there shouldn't be any further confusion. To be honest, I was hoping you'd be pleased by all the progress. Violators of 1RR are now being blocked when they're reported at WP:AE, the disruptive anon has been range blocked, the articles are much more stable, and you've come out of this neither blocked nor even on probation. These are all good things, right? :) --Elonka 15:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No it says I was blocked for a week with no clarification that it was because you made a mistake not me. BigDunc 15:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first note I’ve got from Elonka, the first one I got was here, were they expressed “concern” about my response here while dealing with a sock abusing disruptive user on changing IPs. However, I did not see the same “concern” when they commented on this post here. There was no note on this editors page! I suppose the fact that Elonka commented at all is something, since the same editor here comes out with the same crap, and it gets ignored,it appears selectivity is yet again the order of the day.--Domer48_'fenian' 22:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Does being an uninvolved administrator mean they decided to not get involved in any of this [10] coupled with the editors comments here and here not to mention equally uncivil edit summaries [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16][17][18].--Domer48_'fenian' 21:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert!

Tsk, tsk, such terrible language ;) Favonian (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, sure was I tend to get them myself. BigDunc 18:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Campbell & Thompson

I have started two RMs for Bobby Campbell (Northern Irish footballer) and Trevor Thompson (Northern Irish footballer); your input would be most appreciated. Regards, GiantSnowman 14:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A mistake perhaps?

Is there any particular reason why you just reverted my post to Nancy at User talk:Nancy? -- WikHead (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a mistake and I reverted myself sorry. BigDunc 21:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted :). Happy editing! -- WikHead (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Tagging considered harmful

Hello. I am troubled by this edit. Did you add the {{cn}} tag because you think the sentence needs a reference? I would have naively assumed that the reference at the end of the next sentence would cover this. Do you know different? And I don't see a request on the talk page to have this matter explained. Please don't add any more tags to this article without explaining your reasons clearly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You are easily troubled, the sentence is a sweeping generalisation and it needs a source that loyalists in Ireland feared attack, if it stated in the area maybe but this states the whole country. BigDunc 16:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

So, if I'm parsing that reply correctly, you didn't read the source? Perhaps I am too easily worried, but not without some foundation in this case. Please don't be tagging stuff again without explaining why. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No your not parsing that reply correctly where in the source does it state that the whole loyalist population of Ireland feared attack? BigDunc 19:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the source. That's why I asked you whether you knew what it said. But we seem to be going round in circles. My free advice to you is still the same. Please use the talk page to query things rather than adding tags. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

Here: "he even said on the page that he was going to revert again, which was a blatant disregard of the community sanctions" presumably refers to [19]. I would note that there is a obvious typo in that comment, the redundant "now" should read "not". Given the rest of the sentence "...and I would urge that others do not revert O Fenian's edit either" (my bold) I would hope it is is clear I was not going "to revert again" but actually the opposite. Also, given that I didn't revert O Fenian, it should be clear my actions support that. Now that is clarified, I kindly ask that you reconsider your comment. If it helps I will fix my typo. Rockpocket 17:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Done I have struck the offending comment, thanks for clarification. BigDunc 18:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, BigDunc. I appreciate it. Rockpocket 19:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

BigDunc, I am concerned that over the last few days, your only edits to the Sinn Féin article have been reverts, and you do not seem to be making any other substantive edits to the article. This is not what the revert tool is for, and if you continue with this kind of behavior, you may risk being placed under probation from the Troubles case, which would limit your ability to revert to only once per week. So, instead of reverting the changes of other editors, could you instead please try to change them to a compromise version? This will be a much more effective way to edit in a collegial manner, and will have a higher likelihood of ensuring stable and longterm changes to the article. Thanks, --Elonka 15:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

For battling POV and suffering for the project I award you this.....

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Glad to see some one has the ability and tenacity to defend NPOV against the imposition of POV-by-numbers Sarah777 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Vk's Banning Case

It's best I remain 'neutral' at Vk's Banning Case. PS: I reckon I won't be getting that (above) award, eh? GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why in no way does VK deserve an indef block. BigDunc 21:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want him indef blocked. IMHO, only editors who vandalize articles or commit sock-puppetry, should be indef blocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

IRA article

Thanks for your comments Dunc. I'll keep this in mind. --BwB (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem admins are a little trigger happy with the block button lately. BigDunc 22:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OK Thanks. Do you feel my edits are out of line somehow? I am just trying to improve the article. --BwB (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No not at all, that wasn't the reason I was just informing you of the restrictions as editors not aware of them are very quickly blocked, Happy Editing. BigDunc 21:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Great thanks. --BwB (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

USC

If there's a problem with the edit, let me know please. Jdorney (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying there is a problem with the edit just the marking of it as minor, which IMO it wasn't according to the link I gave you. BigDunc 19:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

ok, apologies for marking it as minor. Jdorney (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No harm done. BigDunc 19:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem

You are reverting to an unsourced POV lead paragraph. I have no problem with you reverting Jdorney's other edits, but that lead paragraph is frankly crap. Either find sources for it, or revert yourself please. Black Kite 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added a source and removed a bit of the sentence. The Scarman Report agreed with that sentence that you are disputing. BigDunc 19:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was necessarily untrue, but given that it "balances out" the next sentence, it does need to be sourced, or else you've got a POV problem. Black Kite 19:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A Chara I put the newbe on my watch list. Looks like some want to roll out a welcome mat. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the welcome was extended to an indef block. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notifications

Dear BigDunc, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! It's been take care of it. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks!!! Basket of Puppies 16:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A small request

Dunc, may I ask why you reverted edit, saying "without talk" when there is whole section in the talk page on it? What part of the content is the problem? I'm sure we can work this out if we discuss it. Regards, Jdorney (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making a personal attack in contravention of both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (diff). Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. EyeSerene^talk 15:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you have insisted on using this talk page to continue the personal attacks that led to this block I have removed your ability to edit it. If you send me, or another administrator, an e-mail stating you will not use your talk page to engage in personal attacks then I will restore that ability. Alternately you may send your unblock request to unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. ^Chillum 15:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi gets asked a reasonable question and Moreschi in reply launches into a personal attack. Making a number of off the wall accusations. Because the Dun responds in kind they get blocked. Moreschi on this tread offers editors some insite into their comments with these contemptious remarks with accusation insinuations and more accusations and then Moreschi then has the effrontery to post this? They get the editor they attacked blocked with this biased and one sided notice. They must be please with the result of their actions.--Domer48_'fenian' 15:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Domer, BigDunc cannot edit this page right now so discussion here is not a good idea. You should bring this up on ANI. Please understand the Moreschi's behavior does not excuse Dunc's behavior so I suggest you don't attempt to focus on that idea. ^Chillum 15:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't tell me I can not post on this talk page! Having closed this ANI tread as resolved your judgment is questionable! Now Dunc is blocked go off now and deal with Moreschi's behavior! --Domer48_'fenian' 15:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

2 weeks? Bit excessive, no? Not that Dunc should've said it in that manner, but he was responding to an accusation... Black Kite 16:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocks tend to get longer when prior short blocks were not effective[20], this is normal. This matter is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#I_am_normally_fairly_lenient_re_incivility.2C_but..., lets not let the discussion get to fragmented by talking about it here. ^Chillum 16:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc I got your e-mail. I asked that you send "an e-mail stating you will not use your talk page to engage in personal attacks", I did not ask you to send me an e-mail reiterating what you have already said. Instead of assuming this user is lying, why not just assume he is in error? I will not be considering your unblock request as I have altered your block settings and am thus too involved to do so. Explaining to me how unfair you think the block is will not help. If you give your word that you will not engage in further personal attacks or incivility then I will restore your ability to edit this page so that you can post an unblock request. Alternately you may send your unblock request to unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. ^Chillum 16:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Based upon your word, given by e-mail, that you will remain civil and not engage in further personal attacks, I have restored your talk page privileges so that you may make an unblock request. ^Chillum 16:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your unblock request by e-mail

I respond to e-mails on wiki unless there are privacy issues to deal with so I will not be responding to you by e-mail as you have asked me to. As I said before, I will not be personally considering your unblock request as I have been involved in changing your block settings. However you are welcome to post an {{unblock}} request here for an uninvolved administrator to review. I imagine a polite request that includes your word that the block is not longer needed to prevent incivility will be granted by most admins. ^Chillum 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|OK, I think the najor reason is addressed now}}

Thanks BK. BigDunc 11:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you back, Dunc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jeanne i'll just have to avoid editors with a chip on their shoulders. BigDunc 13:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I know where you're coming from. Anyroad, it appears that Wikipedia is seeking to punish the editors who actually do work around here. I have always said, that the occasional curse word doesn't do a fraction of the harm that sneering sarcasm does. Oh, by the way, I have over 34,000 edits. Can I display the Veteran Editor's barnstar or do I have to wait till I 've been at Wikipedia for two full years?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You need the 2 years service also, it must be nearly 2 years now? BigDunc 13:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

April 08 I thought you were here longer than that sure your part of the furniture round here now ;) BigDunc 13:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Per talk page, big (if not indef) block coming if it's not sorted" I'd take that as you being put on notice, next time indef! --Domer48_'fenian' 13:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for clarification on this if what is not sorted? BigDunc 13:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why a federal case is being made over your behaviour when there are disruptive editors who have virtually a free hand at Wikipedia to leave a swath of destruction in their wakes. And the train wreck barrels on down the track.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is Systemic bias Jeanne if you edit Irish history articles and are not a supporter of the British version of history you are automatically an IRA supporter and a POV pusher. I was a little resistant to what Sarah was saying about this but the longer you are here the more you see it. The editor User talk:Boneyarddog is indef blocked after 2 edits one a revert and the other an explanation of the revert, know I understand that it looks very like a sock but their is not a shred of evidence and we have Irvine and Fynie both have been caught with socks still editing here (well i use editing in the loosest way possible). BigDunc 14:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also a sex bias here as well. I was pretty much hounded away from the Lee Harvey Oswald talk page because I am a female who does not support the Oswald-acted-alone POV.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I would well believe that, I stay away from the American articles at least I understand the bias shown by the British editors were the yanks are concerned they are a different world altogether and rational discourse goes out the window after a while. BigDunc 14:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You should come across to the Scotland article once in a while. Pushing back the boundaries of Unionist POV is a full time occupation there. Jack forbes (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh believe me Jack I have seen it on them articles also. BigDunc 14:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. --John (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Seen it John. BigDunc 14:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And they are still editing. When sock abusing editors like this [21][22] [23] get ignored we have a problem. Letting this so called editor loose again is another. The thing to remember here though, as long as its only disruption on Irish articles they'll be ignored. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back to the land of Wikia. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Domer speaks the truth. Good to see Dunc is back ClemMcGann (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally have stopped uploading new articles to Wikipedia until the deletion policy is changed so that one doesn't spend hours working on an article only to have it deleted because a few editors think it doesn't meet notability requirements. I believe that an editor must have at least 10,000 edits before he or she is allowed to nominate an article for deletion. It's the deletionists and sarky provocateurs who are proving to be the ruin of Wikipedia. And the train wreck rolls on.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Big Dunc, if you get a similar situation in the future feel free to ask - I would have happily raised an ANI on that admin action. --Snowded ^TALK 10:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Snowded this is were it all went wrong at ANI! The views expressed by Admins in the disucssion are a real issue and it appears ANI is now a cold house for certain named Irish Editors.--Domer48_'fenian' 10:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, read it at the time. However the problem was Big Dunc's response to the original (sorry Big Dunc, it was understandable but not good tactics). Taking anything in this area to ANI needs "clean hands" --Snowded ^TALK 10:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No I agree with you Snowded I should not have taken the bait that was thrown at me but sometimes you just can't help it, you expect it from the usual chorus of loyalist POV pushers but when an admin who in all honesty I don't think I ever had any interaction with does it, it raises the blood pressure. BigDunc 11:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm volunteering to take him or her on next time if you want! --Snowded ^TALK 12:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunc's reaction was understandable, in light of the accusations and insinuations. The great Fenian conspiracy theory was pathetic. The logical gymnastics displayed were laughable. That we have four Irish editors editing articles on Irish subjects described as a group of Irish patriots while a much larger group of British admins and editors (noted for their inability to cite anything other than internet sources) presented as “neutral” editors. That three out of the four editors cunningly disguised their interest in Irish republican history by putting their names down as participants on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republicanism should really show how devious this lot are? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If Snowded is vulunteering to take him/her on the next time he'll need a corner man. I'll wash his gum shield between rounds. :) Jack forbes (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And I'll act as his squire.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Good for you! and give me a call. (btw - what are the duties of a squire?) ClemMcGann (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe a squire has to put the knights armour on and hold his lance for him before the fight. (:0 Jack forbes (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yeh, that leaves me being the bull in the china shop again! Regardless of all this, the editor is still indef blocked! --Domer48_'fenian' 17:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And which lance would I have to hold, Jack?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Has to be a fenian pike ClemMcGann (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Clem do you realise that some of those jousting lances were the size of a tree trunk?! That was why so many knights were killed in tournaments. Another of the squire's duties was helping the armoured knight onto his horse-the armour made it impossible to mount himself. And if the knight were unhorsed in battle or the joust, the squire had to help him to his feet. At the Battle of Agincourt, the Duke of York literally suffocated inside his armour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

mount himself, seeing as we are in Carry on mode if I could mount myself I would never leave the house ;) BigDunc 10:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My unblock

Hi Dunc, sorry if it wasn't clear, it wasn't a threat to block you myself - my point being that eventually if people get blocked enough times, someone's going to say "enough" and block indefinitely, as with User:Fynire yesterday, and obviously that wouldn't do :) Black Kite 07:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Eventually if people get BAD blocked enough times, someone's going to say "enough" and take the tools of the Admin. We live in hope! --Domer48_'fenian' 13:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Slatersteven

If they post on my talk page again remove it please if I'm not around, I'm sick of their false accusations being on there but I'll check the history obviously. Ta. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

will do. BigDunc 15:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Names of the Irish state

I am in the middle of making some edits to this page. Please let me do my edits and if you then think they are somehow out of order, we can discuss it on the talk page etc in the usual way. Thanks. DaliBama (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your major cjanges to the article with bold revert and discuss you were bold I reverted now lets take it to the talk page. BigDunc 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought you had started a discussion on the talk page....If I am missing something, please send me a message. I have no desire to get blocked or break any rules. I am already discussing some of my edits on the Discussion page. Thanks. DaliBama (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was waiting for your explanation for the revert so at least give other editors the chance to respond to you thread on the talk before you continue to make major edits. BigDunc 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Big Dunc, You keep reverting my edits before I have even finished making it...I am in the middle of my Edits. You think they are big Edits and we can discuss that when I am finished them. Broadly, most of the Edits are in fact not that big at all...I am bringing the Article back into the form it had for until only a couple of weeks ago....Please let me do my work and then assess it and we can discuss it. I will revert your change for the moment and then leave you a message here to let you know when I am finished for the night. DaliBama (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Conradh na Gaeilge move debate

FYI: I have added links to the traffic review of both Conradh na Gaeilge and Gaelic League as requested via you cn tag. Thought you might want to know.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah seen them and commented thanks. BigDunc 15:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Responding at my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunc a chara, why bother?--Domer48_'fenian' 21:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I need to ask. How do you pronounce it? Jack forbes (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Which word?--Domer48_'fenian' 21:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Seachtain, Conradh and Foras na Gaeilge. If I knew my own native language I'm sure I wouldn't have to ask, alas I wasn't taught it. Jack forbes (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, BigDunc. I don't know why you're getting annoyed with my 'votes'. From what I can tell, the RMs-in-question aren't gonna be passed. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is some links that might help you out Jack [24], [25]. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Domer. I know that both Scots and Irish Gaelic were indistinguishable at one time in history (we Scots did originate from Ireland) but I wonder, have you or Dunc ever met a Gaelic speaker from Scotland, and if so would you be able to converse with any level of understanding. Without speaking English of course. Jack forbes (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that was a no then. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Only noticing the question now jack, no I never knew anyone who could speak it, would be interesting to try a conversation I'd assume there would be similarities. BigDunc 16:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Edward O'Brien (Irish republican)

Hi Dunc, I think you created this article? Not sure, there's something strange about the revision history - possibly a cut and paste move at some point. But as a courtesy I thought I'd let you know I've nominated it for deletion, as per the reasons on the AFD page. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've chosen to withdraw my 'delete' vote, as that article is over a year old. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot understand why this article was nominated for deletion as it complies with Wiki guidelines for notability. It doesn't matter how old the article is; it's the fact that O'Brien was notable enough to warrant his own article which hopefully will keep it from being deleted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, I nominated the article as I feel that it does not meet the guidelines for notability. Specifically it fails WP:BIO1E. My latest reply to Khan on the AFD page explains this more. If anything is notable here, it is the event, not the person. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some work on it over the next few days Dunc, should be looking a lot healthier by the time I've finished. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User: 86.166.203.72

Just reverted another bit of vandalism by the above.Autarch (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrites

I notice the hypocrites are ignoring again all the new editors of a particular persuasion on Irish History/Politics articles. So lets see if I have this right, all Brit/West Brit (Blue Shirt/Shoneens), Loyalist including English and Scottish Monarchists who make up the majority on these articles are considered neutral, while Irish editors who edit Irish articles of all things are rampant Nationalists trying to infect wiki with their evil edits. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If this editor was attacking the great and the good of the above cabals sure they'd be indef blocked on the spot!--Domer48_'fenian' 22:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Fear not, BigDunc. I've sent Razorfishes a link to WP:TERRORIST, to enlighten him/her. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Domer, I find it fascinating that not one of the admins that "patrol" articles related to The Troubles never see any of these type of comments, they are the first to show derision when it is pointed out to them that Irish editors always seem to be the ones getting sanctioned, yet not one of them ever see the actions of editors like this. As soon as we point it out to them it is usually ignored. At least Stu reverted it and fair play to him for doing it, but I do not believe that any of the usual admins didn't see it. BigDunc 23:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all your excellent work countering sectarian vandals pushing their offensive POV! 2 lines of K303 15:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Dunc

"Merry Christmas, Dunc" from the friendly, neighbourhood troll

The line

This comment was a clear personal attack.[26] Please disengage. --Elonka 20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sinn Féin

This edit[27] appears to have been made in opposition to the consensus at that article's talkpage, which is that the list of leaders should only include those from 1970 and onwards. Please accept this consensus, and try to find another way to compromise. --Elonka 18:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't, what consensus? There is none would you show me a diff instead of coming here spouting untruths it appears to me half and half, maybe you should read WP:CONSENSUS again you made the same mistake ove the reliability of Aubane. BigDunc 19:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The consensus at WP:RSN was extremely clear, in multiple threads, that Aubane Historical Society was not a reliable source. In any case, the determination of consensus at Talk:Sinn Fein is now made. Instead of continuing to argue the point or edit war about it, please try to respect the opinions of other editors, and collaborate towards finding some kind of compromise that you can live with. --Elonka 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again, this discussion was closed by the sock abusing IP who opened it. They looked for a second opinion here and were told no consensus. This discussion has not been closed, yet despite this you say here there was consensus. And then you post this up saying that there was consensus. So have you read our policy on consensus lately if not read it again. Also were is the diff of consensus on SF? BigDunc 20:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree Dunc, on the first discussion on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Elonka accepts that her determination that there consensus was challenged she also posted the link to the discussion on ANI here the result from it was that there was no consensus and even the sock abusing IP who opened both treads here accepted that her determination was not accepted at ANI. So the question remains, were is the diff for consensus? --Domer48_'fenian' 09:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah welcome back Domer, it looks like she can't find the diff were consensus was established so as I said no consensus. BigDunc 11:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep I'm back! I didn't bother me bollox with an unblock request, but I will be addressing it soon. The request for supporting diff's will become an issue if she continues to refuse to back up her claims. So there are to-date two diff's outstanding, one for the consensus on the SF article and one for Aubane. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

HAPPY 2010

Happy New Year, BigDunc. This might be the year, we finally get the Republic of Ireland title corrected; accuracy will prevail. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope it's the year they discover how to halt the aging process. June is only six months away, and I dread my next birthday.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Go raibh maith agat, man :) Happy new year too. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Blwyddyn Newydd Dda! --Snowded ^TALK 18:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of D's Snow ;) Thanks all. BigDunc 18:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Agus Tusa Freisin!

Happy New Year to you! Jdorney (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year, BigDunc. Jack forbes (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

go beith mide saol ar an am so aris ClemMcGann (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why bother

A Chara, don't waste your time with them! Least we forget their BS indef block on me, not to mention all the socks they turn a blind eye too. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)