Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::Thank you for your addition of a Fourth Opinion to this article. As I noted in my Third Opinion, with which you appear to concur, one particular editor has blind views on the subject matter. Despite his rather flimsy protestations to the contrary, he has imbued the article with many levels of POV and it is fairly difficult to acknowledge any objectivity in the piece. I found his response to me that ''I don't ''have'' a position on the subject matter, and therefore my position is neither "inflamed" nor "historic"'' to be one of the most delicious pieces of irony I have read on Misplaced Pages over the last several years.
::Thank you for your addition of a Fourth Opinion to this article. As I noted in my Third Opinion, with which you appear to concur, one particular editor has blind views on the subject matter. Despite his rather flimsy protestations to the contrary, he has imbued the article with many levels of POV and it is fairly difficult to acknowledge any objectivity in the piece. I found his response to me that ''I don't ''have'' a position on the subject matter, and therefore my position is neither "inflamed" nor "historic"'' to be one of the most delicious pieces of irony I have read on Misplaced Pages over the last several years.
::When I offer Third Opinions I rarely make conforming edits myself (as often the protagnosists are mature enough to sort matters out for themselves) but here applaud your own moves in making the changes which you did. I suspect you will need to watch the article quite carefully as the editor in question seems quite cavalier in reinstating his own POV. Kind regards--'''''<span style= "font-size:large;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]</span><sup>]</sup>''''' 08:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
::When I offer Third Opinions I rarely make conforming edits myself (as often the protagnosists are mature enough to sort matters out for themselves) but here applaud your own moves in making the changes which you did. I suspect you will need to watch the article quite carefully as the editor in question seems quite cavalier in reinstating his own POV. Kind regards--'''''<span style= "font-size:large;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;">]</span><sup>]</sup>''''' 08:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you ] for your decidedly “neutral” opinions on me, as opposed to my edits. You would probable have a different view to me also on ] were were are advised to ]. That you were [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Calabraxthis&diff=prev&oldid=266755848
both canvassed] for your views may account for the colour and tone you adopted. In light of this, I will take both your comments on me and my edits as less than “neutral” opinions. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this account in any way related to the above user? If so/not, can you please consider making a note of it on your user page, as you are both active editors apparently interested in the same topics, which makes discussion confusing to follow for others. I placed the same note on their talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi red, haven't been in touch for a while. Hope all's well. If you have the time and inclination, I'd appreciate your opinion at Dunmanway Massacre article. There are a few issues around refs, layout and tone and we'd be grateful for some fresh eyes. See the talk page for (extremely!) lengthy discussion of the issues.
Thank you for your addition of a Fourth Opinion to this article. As I noted in my Third Opinion, with which you appear to concur, one particular editor has blind views on the subject matter. Despite his rather flimsy protestations to the contrary, he has imbued the article with many levels of POV and it is fairly difficult to acknowledge any objectivity in the piece. I found his response to me that I don't have a position on the subject matter, and therefore my position is neither "inflamed" nor "historic" to be one of the most delicious pieces of irony I have read on Misplaced Pages over the last several years.
When I offer Third Opinions I rarely make conforming edits myself (as often the protagnosists are mature enough to sort matters out for themselves) but here applaud your own moves in making the changes which you did. I suspect you will need to watch the article quite carefully as the editor in question seems quite cavalier in reinstating his own POV. Kind regards--Calabraxthis08:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
