User talk:Dppowell/Archive2

Nollaig shona!

Hi there, long time! Not being in great form so have not done any real work here for ages. Thanks for dropping a line, its apprecieated. Fergananim 18:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi, thanks for the nice comments:). I don't have Clonard, but I do have Bective, Ballyboggan, Buttevant, Ballybeg, Claregalway, Athassel, Baltinglass, Ballysadare and Gowrana. Cmount 11:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course I'll upload a selection. Re. the monasteries, have you seen White, N.B. 1943. Extents of Irish Monastic Possessions 1540-41. This is the survey of monastic lands commisioned by Henry VIII to aid the dissolution. The extent and possessions of each monastery are described in detail.Cmount

Early Christian Ireland

Thanks for the kind words. I'm not exactly progressing rapidly, I was hoping Ferg would round to give me a hand, or that I'd have moved somewhere that it's possible to get books on the subject out of the library on loan. I did a slight rewrite of Saint Patrick, again I was a bit stumped for sources. I know there were quite a lot of books came out around 1993, but I haven't come across any of them. Anyway, thanks again! Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I stepped away from my computer just long enough for 66.190.151.249 to discover that I prefer factual edits to Wikipedia rather than silly vandalism. Shocking! Thanks for the revert. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs

Panairjdde sock

Thanks for letting me know, it has been blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Award

The Black Cross of St. Declan You, Dppowell, are awarded the Black Cross of St. Declan for going medieval on our asses with your excellent work on articles of Dark Ages and Middle Ages interest. De réir a chéile a thógtar na caisleáin - "It takes time to build castles" Ciarán of Clonmacnoise 05:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK!

On January 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abu Mena, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contributions! Nishkid64 00:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Panairjdde

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll take add a comment a bit later on tonight. :) - Deathrocker 20:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be very subtle about it, I mean the guy always edits the same things on the same articles. Just each time he creates a new sock, puts different infoboxes on the userpage and thinks this will somehow "trick" editors.

From the articles I personally frequent he seems to target Italian football and International football clubs kit lay-outs, and also any image relating to those articles which is under fair use. I'm also aware that he edits many articles pertaining to the Roman empire, and often messes around with the dates on them.

Jayjg seems to know of the user's actions quite well, so maybe it will be best to directly report any sock activity to him, as soon as Panairjdde is spotted returning and he can sort it out swiftly? - Deathrocker 22:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I am definitely interested in it, as most of the banned user's vandalism efforts are on U.S. Città di Palermo, an article I quite care about. --Angelo 11:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde

He uses dynamic IPs in a wide range, so there is concern that others will be blocked as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What has he done know? I just checked up on him within the las couple of days and sw he hasn't edited since the middle of December. Kingjeff 10:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the page is a great idea. I'll try to help out when possible. I've checkusered and re-tagged the latest bunch of sockpuppets, and also tagged and blocked the latest one, User:BirdsCover, which you had not yet noticed. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC) By the way, you might find the original user page of User:BirdsCover amusing; I wonder where he got the idea. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock editing Ireland?

Don't want to say at moment, but 98% sure of particular editor. The 2% stops me citing the name. 86.42.138.37 14:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at my rv again, I acknowledge that it was a bit rash. So apologies, Thanks. 86.42.138.37 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to my last, I don't believe that I am all too much more anonymous than some editors who create accounts for specific purposes. At least you know that I am editing from Dublin. That's one big drawback about WP. With scholarship, in the past at any rate, it was alway important to know the background of the author of a particular work of history, or other. That was an important filter to reading contentious text. Some authorship is mealy an exercise in pushing point of view aspects etc. Cheers!-86.42.138.37 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Regarding User:Kingjeff, you'll notice that his block record does not indicate anything about blocking banned socks. In fact, it highlights a continuing pattern of poor behavior. I hope that when he comes back to edit, he will do so with an improved understanding of our policies, and will avoid future blocks. Crum375 06:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you mean well, and I appreciate your trying to help a fellow editor, but you say that he reverted "socks of an editor who subsequently received a community ban". According to WP's rules, you may revert freely socks of a banned editor, but you may not revert unless you have confirmed information about the socks and the banning. If the editor he reverted was only subsequently banned, then it means the 3RR violation was correctly assessed and blockable. Also, the behavior notes in the block record, coming from different admins, depict a pattern of poor conduct. Best, Crum375 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

We need to redo it. We need to recheck 81.211.198.6 immediately. Kingjeff 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Nice to meet you. fluoronaut 19:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message about my recent edits

I don't understand your message. It doesn't mention even what article you are talking about. I don't do edit warring.

Aldrichio 03:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I see that you are talking about the Charlemagne article. I wasn't edit warring. If you look at the message above yours on my talk page, you'll see that the other editor says his revert of my edit was unintentional. Therefore I made the edits again. Please inform yourself before interfering.

Aldrichio 03:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

About populism in Latin America

Sir, I do not know how to send private messages in the same way you sent them to me about my edits, so I'm writing to you here. I politely ask you to let me know which are the personal opinions you talk of in your message. I do not want to impose my point of view, and agree with the remarks you made me in your message, apart from the said question. I am going to tearn how to quote correctly according to Wikipedia standards, and soon it will be all fixed. I confess that in the first editions I made of the article I acted in an extremely passionate way, which I hope you may understand, taking into account the insults to the Church it contained -which your jealous guardianship of the article's impartiality evidently didn't considered-. But in the last edition, I believe I had deleted all content which could be regarded partial. I also made some corrections to purify, as much as I am able, the English language used in the article, since the original author incurred in a number of mistakes -I myself am an Argentinian, so I could detect some common Spanish-speakers' errors in writing English.

About populism in Latin America

I think there's been a mistake from my part; those affirmations you quote actually are personal opinions, but unfortunately they don't even belong to me, since they were present in the original version of the article - I just added the words right-wing before populism in the second extract. I should had deleted them. Thank you for your advice.

Freivolk 14:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Pat Binns page & comments

You messaged me recently about Pat Binns' page. I haven't listed citations for information that is public knowledge. The page is being sabotaged by a political opponent to the Premier who is filling the page with biased information about his organization. The user sdpate is a director and creator of the group Disability Alert, which has recently entered the political arena due to our upcoming provincial election. It is not acceptable to allow this page to be dictated by political opponents such as Steven Pate. The content I have written is fair & balanced, including both positives and negatives of Pat Binns' premiership. The content provided by sdpate is purely negative and regularly includes links to his own website. This is unaccaptable due to its clear bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Someuser69 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Thx

Hi, this crazy edit battle is actually going to be highlighted in a CBC Radio Charlottetown segment tomorrow. I'd like to thank you for your part in keeping Someuser and sdpate at bay during this whole nonesense. I'll let you know if they post the segment online.

Pate is actually a one-man "activism group", and he sits in front of the provincial capital daily, apparently. Hopefully the story will bring people more level headed to the group than either of the two we've both dealt with. -- Zanimum 19:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Kelloggs

I meant to remove the one sentence about the lawsuit - Wikipedia is not for listing lawsuits against companies, unless they are won, or are major - any multinational is going to have a many cases against it at all times. (67.182.116.184 07:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC))