User talk:Dr Daly

Welcome!

Hello, Dr Daly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Malerooster (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, most kind. --Dr Daly (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Righteo

Righteo, to ensure for me that you are not a sock I am requesting your input at the Roy Johnston article. You have made an issue out of sources regarding this particular person at Wolfe Tone Societies so I would like to see such a critique at this page that you, me and SonofSetanta have never edited before - well I recently added an inline citation needed tag to the article but that is my one and only contribution to the article. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm....strange, very strange. I'll respectfully decline. Bye bye. --Dr Daly (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

::Not strange. You are making complaints about the sources in the Wolfe Tone Societies article, why not do the same on a related article? Especially as it's about a person you contested the sources being used on at the WST article. The fact you have only contributed to that one very newly created article out of all the ones on Wikipedia leads me to suspect you being a WP:SOCK. The fact you keep neglecting to respond to that accusation, which innocents and new users usually do quite vehemently, only backs up my suspicion. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a grievous error in judgment, which I've highlighted at the AN/I you opened. Having done a user comparison, it would appear highly unlikely that you are a sockpuppet of who I suspected you to be one of. As such I wholeheartedly apologise for my suspicions, which if you where present and understood the recent events concerning SonofSetenta and Psychonaut (which the very recently created Wolfe Tone Societies article was the latest battleground of), naturally raised suspicion in me.

If we meet each other again on Wikipedia, you will be treated with good faith and courtesy, and I will help you if required.

Mabuska ^(talk) 23:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unasked for advice

While we are all here to improve the encyclopedia, Dr Daly, we are volunteers here. The Wolfe Tone Societies article has been the subject of some debate (as you can see by reading the other messages on the Talk Page). Other people have worked on the article and sometimes you need to argue your case. While no one "owns" an article, it can still sting when someone deletes the portions of the article that one contributed. If you continue to work on Wikipedia (which I hope you do), you'll find your own contributions can just as well be discarded by a new editor. That's why people are sometimes protective about the articles they work on.

Any way, the two editors who were working on that article have said they don't want to argue any more and reportedly abandoned it so perhaps the point is moot. I do hope Wikipedia can benefit from your expertise, I guess I just wanted to let you know that because human beings are at work, Wikipedia is not a conflict-free zone (especially on the topic of Ireland). Luckily, policies and guidelines help guide us through conflict but situations, unfortunately, can get intense. On the whole, I think in the end, it works out more often than not. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out - there is nothing to argue about at the article now, Dr Daly's issues where dealt with and worked on so that they are no longer issues. Dr Daly has improved the article even if their edits where reverted by SoS, their argument won the day as SoS and me amended the stuff to fit with what Dr Daly was pointing out.

Whilst I have no real interest in the article, seeing as I was simply helping out an editor who got into copyright violation problems, it will still be on my watchlist and radar. I will simply not be doing any expanding on it as sources a quite hard to come by for this quite obscure and minor organisation.

Though if Dr Daly seen some of the conflict that has raged on Wikipedia in the past, this whole thing will be seen as the ripple caused by a crumb of bread as it hits the water.

And as Liz said, it does work out more often than not. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabuska. The recent ANI on Manning being one of them.

@Dr Daly. You wouldn't mind if someone else quickly chips in would you? While people may get defensive around certain articles there is a policy against acting like you own it (which this kind of behaviour would suggest.) Take a look at this. The more you know yes? I'd also like you to take a look at this page and consider looking into it.

Also (if it isn't too troubling a topic), when someone calls you a sock do you know what they are referring to? I know you've had a somewhat unhappy start and I wanted to see if in all of the mist surrounding it you actually have gained insight into what people were accusing you of.

Y'all take care and a humble welcome to you. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 19:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation and other template tags

Just to point out, it's common practice to add a date parameter to template messages so editors can see how long they have been up for. The way to do this is to simply add "|date=27 August 2013" to any template tag such {{cn|date=27 August 2013}} or {{refimprove|date=August 2013}}

Mabuska ^(talk) 21:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]