User talk:BigDunc

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Comments that I feel are unhelpful will be removed at my discretion.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BigDunc.

START A NEW TOPIC ON THIS PAGE

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

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

Your comments are requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Enough_is_enough.--Tznkai (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

per email

{{87.232.1.94|Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Arbtwi". The reason given for Arbtwi's block is: "Vandalism-only account".|Alison|1157531}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 87.232.1.94 lifted. School IP?

Request handled by: -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address above resolves to filter11.filter.imagine.ie which is a shared internet gateway. There are other users on there - Alison ^❤ 19:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probation notice

Due to your edit warring on Ireland related articles, I have placed you on the probationary terms available to administrators under the The Troubles. This probation self expires in two months from this time, or until lifted by administrator or community discretion.--Tznkai (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me where I have breached policy. BigDunc^Talk 11:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[4] here is a good start. The mess that you participated in out here[5] is another. You were edit warring. You were being disruptive, QED, you were breaching a number of policies on civility, disruption, and edit warring.--Tznkai (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am placed on probation for edit warring you have not shown me any where that I have been involved in an edit war and the link you provided proves that. I went to the talk page 3 or 4 days before starting the edits you are refering to, stating that I would be removing any unsourced content which I did all of which were reverted and not once did I revert back. As regards the incivility in which I was abusive to TU I hold my hand up to that but in my defense I felt I was being patronised and really should not have said that to him. And that probably should have resulted in a block at the time, but to punish me now is punative. BigDunc^Talk 15:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A block at the time would have putative. Blocking policy is a farce as it is. I have no particular problem with punitive blocks, I just wish blocking policy would stop pretending blocks are not used as punishment.Traditional unionist (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you again TU I was out of order in my comments to you and definetly should not have said it and as I said should have been blocked at the time. BigDunc^Talk 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

There is a line or two at WP:AE#Other Notes that you should be paying attention to, and my unfinished report is here and your section is mostly finished.--Tznkai (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I could interject here. I think Dunc has been gaming the system with Domer on 3RR reverts and other things (although not within the past 6 to 8 weeks it must be said). However, your argument against him is almost entirely nonsense. You cite removal of tagged unreferenced paragraphs as serious! I'm always frustrated at people doing that rather than looking for a source, but to enact probation with this as your higher standard of evidence is just incredulous. I think there could be a case made here, but the one offered is laughable.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TU much appreciated but if any admin asks Rockpocket I changed my editting pattern after consultation with him to stop this tag team calling that was going on. When RP explained how it looked I agreed with him and changed accordingly, yet I still find myself at the end of these sanctions. As regard finding a source TU I did I searched for 3 days for a sourece but could not find any and I did make my intentions known and asked any editors who could find them to insert them. BigDunc^Talk 15:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying not to say too much about this because I think it's making us all look bad however I do have to say, as I've said elsewhere that you and I had reached a workable compromise on editing via discussion. Where it seemed to fall down was when I pointed out I didn't have a lot of time to find references for some tagged items and they were deleted. I felt a little aggrieved about that. My situation hasn't changed btw, time is still short for business reasons which is why I still haven't addressed that particular issue. I am confident however that if you and I work together on that particular article we can remove much of the political cruft which it currently contains and leave only what is necessary to inform the reader of the political influences and factors which are relevant. The problem at the moment, in my view, is that there's too much accusation and counter accusation throughout the article and that can be removed. The Thunderer (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

... for catching this guy earlier today. It's nice to know someone's looking out for me. If you want the background to that guy, you can read it on ANI here. Thanks again ;) - Alison ^❤ 04:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem you tend to attract a rare breed of editor. BigDunc^Talk 11:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Very High Records

A tag has been placed on Very High Records requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BigDunc^Talk 10:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]