Misplaced Pages

User talk:Red King: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:22, 31 January 2009 editDomer48 (talk | contribs)16,098 edits Dunmanway massacre: comment← Previous edit Revision as of 14:22, 31 January 2009 edit undoDomer48 (talk | contribs)16,098 edits Dunmanway massacre: commentNext edit →
Line 25: Line 25:
::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 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 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)
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)

Revision as of 14:22, 31 January 2009

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.
ga-1Gaeilge de chaighdeán bunúsach ag an úsáideoir seo.
fr-1Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.
it-1Quest'utente può contribuire con un livello semplice di italiano.
es-1Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español.
This user prefers the metric system.

Archives

Red King Archive 1; Red King Archive 2; Red King Archive 3; Red King Archive 4;Red King Archive 5;


Redking7 (talk · contribs)

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)

Our user names have 6 characters in common and three that are different. That's as close as it gets. --Red King (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunmanway massacre

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.

Cheers Jdorney (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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--Calabraxthis 08:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you User:Calabraxthis for your decidedly “neutral” opinions on me, as opposed to my edits. You would probable have a different view to me also on WP:NPA were were are advised to comment on content, not on the contributor. That you were 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. --Domer48'fenian' 14:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)