Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:29, 29 January 2007

User:Weggie/Archive1

Apologies

My apologies for the pretty wholesale removal of much of your work - it seemed to repeat verbatim the Telegraph's obit for TFH. Saltmarsh 05:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Weggie 11:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Joe MacManus

Can you link the McManus name to the McManus name as I am sure people will search both for him Vintagekits 21:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi mate, I am going to change the name of the article to Joe MacManus not Joseph MacManus, any objections? Vintagekits 22:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi mate, I see you took out a lot of the new information that I recently added. All out the new information came from p.333 - p.365 Toolis' book Rebel Hearts which was published by St. Martin's Griffin in 1995. This section of the article give a extensive and graffic account of the ambush Vintagekits 22:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you get this messege?? regards Vintagekits 23:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not vandalize talk pages

Wiki policy states, "Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism." You removed multiple comments. Don't do it again please. Superdude99 21:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Click on the Archive link above for all previous comments as per Archive — don't delete wikipolicyWeggie 21:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You KNOW i'm talking about this edit . You cant just remove it because it makes your talk page look better to your POV or you don't agree with the contents. Dont do it again. Superdude99 23:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Bandit Country

Fair enough. My edition is a bit out of date. My edition is the 1999 one. Published in London by Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 034071736X.

However, I would imagine the chapter format and content is broadly similar. The material on the dissidents is taken from the chapter "A Pause in the Solution", (p309-335 of this edition). Perhaps Harnden has more info on this in later editions, I don't know. What other citations are you concerned about?

Jdorney 12:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Which edits specifically? The dissident stuff?

Jdorney 12:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry

Please don't change this. As I understand it, if the context is clearly Unionist, Misplaced Pages refers to Londonderry; if the context is Nationalist, refer to Derry. Otherwise we will have a ton of edit wars over lots of articles. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The 'use Derry for the City, Londonderry for the County' policy only applies to article titles. The text is another country. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion was at Talk:Derry. Please see in particular Talk:Derry#"The city" elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Irish Manual of Style can be found at WP:IMOS, it shows that, all things being equal we use Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county. Ben W Bell talk 11:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work

I appreciate your work on Bloody Sunday (1972). Well done. --Guinnog 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Volunteer

why do you consider the term Volunteer a "provo" term? Vintagekits 15:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Well? Vintagekits 00:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• We're discussing this at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) if you want to add your opinion. Demiurge 22:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please explain why you consider the term Volunteer (republican) to be POV - more people consider Volunteer more correct than the term member, so either explain yourself or do not edit! Vintagekits 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't like your tone - I've commented on the discussion page which is the correct place for this information Weggie 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • This was your comment on that page - "I'm with jnestorius on this one, volunteer is clearly POV as many posters have stated. This is not a site for the glorification of the IRA, the recent changes by Beaumont/Vintagekits need reversing" - this does not explain why you consider it POV. Vintagekits 19:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Is this (http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/DownDaRoad - see the postings of "Irish History") an example of canvassing? A look through the past opinions of the users this message was posted to shows that they are heavilly republican. Moreover, that the account was created on the very day that all of these postings occured suggests it was a deliberate attempt by a user involved in the debate to sway opinion without being caught for canvassing. Logica 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Canvassing can be deleted on sight by admins and editors alike and, again, individuals found to have disrupted Misplaced Pages by canvassing are often blocked." Do you think there is a case? Logica 23:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - It's clear there are other sockpuppets posting as well. An admin. with IP tracing would be very useful!! Weggie 10:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Dickson

Weggie, I knew you would be straight in on this one!! Anyway I think this is one we both can expand quite a bit, I am going to do a bit more on the alleged attempt on "The Informer" so if you could source something more on that that would be good Vintagekits 21:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I agree with your renaming of Michael Gaughan's page, and that that should be the standard format unless there is a good reason not to, what do you think? Vintagekits 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Second point - The name change I did was fairly straightforward as it was just a bit of shortening of the title. Do you think we need to distinguish between 'mainstream' (for want of a better name :0) ) Irish Republicanism in the Republic and PIRA/CIRA/OIRA/RIRA activists. Not from any political POV but because you could have Fianna Fáil Taoiseachs in the same category, which probably wouldn't be that clear to a reader what was being denoted by the (Irish Republican) bit of the title? Weggie 21:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, maybe I need to think about it but I would think that it would be OK and anyway the politicians would probably be distinguished to {Irish politician) Vintagekits 21:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Article renaming

Weggie, can you go here and see if I am doing this right. Vintagekits 17:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday disambiguation

Greetings from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Disambiguation. I have disambiguated all the links for Bloody Sunday on Misplaced Pages. Please remember to disambiguate your links. Use ] which expands to ]. -- Randall Bart 04:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Obsession with RSF and 32CSM

Hi, I cannot understand your latest edits to Republican Sinn Féin and the 32 County Sovereignty Movement. It is immaterial whether these groups are registered with the Electoral Commission. Misplaced Pages aims to be an authoritative encyclopedia and does not necessarily bound to official, state or legal definitions.

Please take some time to look at List of political parties in the United Kingdom and tell me how many of those parties are registered with the Electoral Commission.--Damac 14:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a clear distinction between registered parties and 'others' in wiki if wiki is to provide a clear view of which parties partipate in elections. The entire list/s will be redone as a project to cover all parties as I've taken the time. Look at the electoral commission website before kneejerk edits. 'Obcession' (sic)?? -Done bother replying if you can't take a civil tone Weggie 15:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Weggie has the right to comment on any subject he deems fit. He is a good balance to republican propagandists on wiki. After all it is facts that rules that count not POV, so if Weggie has an issue with any article or section thereof then we either gotta back up what we say with proof or else shut it! Vintagekits 00:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course he makes a valuable contribution to Misplaced Pages. I've also had issue with republican propagandists in Misplaced Pages (Vintagekits, I think you should refrain from using sectarian terms on Misplaced Pages) and have battled with RSF-CIRA fanatics numerous times on a number of webpages. However, in doing so does not mean I should refrain from questioning Weggie's edits to the same pages.--Damac 12:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree and think that generally Weggie does a good job Beaumontproject 11:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a self mocking comment. Vintagekits 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Volunteer Issue

If the rank of Volunteer is deny for those within the IRA then I will be deleting any reference to any sort of structure or rank within the IRA in all pages so that it will be in line with your asertion that they are honourific and POV Vintagekits 22:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style - Baron Carswell

Hi, yes you are right, but you have not read the whole text: ...provided that they do not hold a higher dignity, such as a peerage, which trumps that usage. I had added the prefix, when I created the article, however, unfortunately, have slept a bit myself. Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 01:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

Yep - I'll hold my hands up for that one! - I've reverted to your version Weggie 01:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reaction. ~~ Phoe _talk 01:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

Gerry Kelly page

Weggie, firstly, thanks for fixing some of my bad spelling, it was late last night. Secondly I inserted Volunteer instead of bomber as it reads better in the opening section and created a separate section for the London bombs - do yiu think that is ok until the mediation is sorted?--Vintagekits 21:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You should have asked for advice before you did it. Logoistic 21:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It was part of a total write of the article and did not break any rules - the original article was copy edit vio from here--Vintagekits 21:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Vintage - no probs. With regard to the Volunteer thing, maybe bomber isn't the best word here. How about a compromise at 'IRA prisoner'|linking to your Volunteer page as this will make everyone happy and save on the hassle. Weggie 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what you are saying however bomber or prisoner it doesnt really describe his role in the role. i.e. he didnt join the IRA to become a prisoner if you know what I mean--Vintagekits 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries - just a suggestion. To be honest I'm staying away from the mediation issues from now on, as I've said my piece. Think there were a couple of pages I'v stumbled across that need some work by the way Brian Gillen & Gerard Montgomery if you're interested Weggie 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know a bit about them so will contribute--Vintagekits 22:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Cruiser

Conor Cruise O'Brien is not a revisionist historian? It's an equivocating term, but to substitute unorthodox doesn't do the trick either. IMO, he's quite orthodox, but with an ornery POV.--Shtove 23:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

'Unorthodox' was substituted for revisonist as a description for the Burke biog; it's not a general description of CC's work as a historian. The book as I see it is unothodox in that it looks at different aspects of Burkes life and career than are usually examined. What term would you prefer for this work? Weggie 10:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

kingsmill

Weggie, you may be interested in the recent edits to the Kingsmill massacre page. I would consider them to be highly pov and misleading, as I have outlined on the talk page.

Jdorney 18:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I didn't notice the revert war, as I was expanding the article at the time. I have included the quotes from Wright and O'Callaghan in the new version. I suggest that we all address the remaining issues on the article talk page. The advantage of Vintage Kit's edits were that they gave the article a better structure, so I have kept some of them, while also inserting more information.

Jdorney 18:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you happy to removethe disputed tag fron the Kingsmills article now or do you feel there are still npov issues?

Jdorney 10:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to leave the tag until the sources are clarified. I'm still unhappy that the article is being used for unsourced conspiracy theories about the SAS being involved with sectarian killings (Is English, p172 relevent - I haven't got a copy handy?). I think in terms of balance that we need information on the memorials /CofI services and calls for enquiries. PS. Like to take opportunity to commend you for your work on the page (and generally). Very impressive.

Thank you very much. Re the SAS in Richard English, I'm afraid all he says is what I've quoted. Harnden has a chapter on the SAS in Bandit Country. I'll have to read through it before I can say what he says on the subect. Jdorney 19:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going for an attempt at compromise on the talk page. Hopefully we can then move some of the material on collusion etc elsewhere and thrash it out there. If people won't see reason then we might have to involve mods. But I'd prefer to get some kind of consensus if possible. Jdorney 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Weggie, I have left a comment for you on the article disussion page. See what you think.

Nomath 16:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we call in some third opinions on the Kingsmill page? I've outlined my thoughts on the talk page and don't feel like fighting other users any more over the content. Jdorney 08:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me - I'm busy with creating content for the NI elections so I haven't got time to contribute much at the moment Weggie 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar

It would be nice to link back to the ECHR site, however last time I searched for it the judgement was not available online. However, I did save a copy when it was and created a signed .pdf so its available and the reference section on gibnet.com which is a permanent archive. Its important to read it as it sets out the evidence at the inquest, which itself is not readily available. Too many reports about it are slanted according to what people would like to believe depending on which side they favour.

FWIW the Channel 4 reconstruction of the inquest was rated very highly by the court staff who found it disturbingly accurate. Perhaps they will repeat it one day. --Gibnews 20:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that pre-meditation was ruled out by the judgement only that the SAS shouldn't have been deployed - they must have a lot of faith in the Gib police! Weggie 10:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Gibraltar police were and remain capable of dealing with serious threats; I find the attempts at revisionism distasteful, we all know why the IRA people were here, that they were neutralised saved countless lives, including mine. --Gibnews 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - The deployment of the SAS was a decision for the UK Govt. and a good one Weggie 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Now now girls, dont be getting all exicted!--Vintagekits 23:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:62.253.219.178

Hi and thanks for your message. I see three problematic edits in the anon user's recent history, of which one was as you say just untidy (and perhaps unencyclopedic) and the other two were actual vandalism. I think I would have been inclined to give a {{test2}} warning for that but as the same IP has been previously blocked for vandalism I am inclined to let the {{bv}} stand. A little harsh? Yes. Worth going to the trouble to remove? I wouldn't say so. Best wishes, --Guinnog 15:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I GAF

Re. your comment, I have spell checked as you suggested and found only 3 errors. That's hardly enough to put a tag on, and the nature of your withdrawal of it implied the problem was still substantial. Bear in mind that there are alternative UK and US spellings for some words, especially ending in -ise (UK) and ize (US), or armour (UK) and armor (US). I follow UK spelling here as it is appropriate for the subject per WP:MOS. We all get grumpy at times, but try to avoid those kind of edit summaries. They don't do anything to create goodwill. Thanks! Tyrenius 14:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Begley

What exactly is it the you think it not WP:NPOV--Vintagekits 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

See talk - non neutral source for entire section -discuss talk page

Re:User:Vintagekits and myself, formerly User:El Chulito

I was advised by an Administrator that I had to change my username (El chulito) to a new name, so I have chosen this one. I just wanted to let you know, so you didn't think I was trying anything underhanded.

In re Kieran Fleming, you referred to POV, which I think may have been referring to a change I made, e.g. removing Loyalist from the sentence: ...the Protestant and Loyalist Waterside..().

I don't believe this was POV b/c this refers to the Waterside area of Derry City in the late 50s/early 60s or thereabouts, and the term Loyalist would not apply; this was before the violence even started. It is also wrong to intertwine or use the terms Protestant and Loyalist synonymously.

Yours, New identity 13:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Protestant and Unionist may have been synonymously but Weggie is correct to say that Protestant and Loyalist is possibly not synonymously for the Waterside at that time although it was borderline.--Vintagekits 13:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think then we're all in agreement as I would assert it is wrong to characterise the Waterside as 'Loyalist' Weggie 14:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007

you really are going to be a busy bhoy for the next two months!!! good luck with it.--Vintagekits 14:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll be busy anyway :0) Weggie 15:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not too busy I hope - anyway got my own focus - like Septic Peg once said "I predict gains"--Vintagekits 15:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill

You may be interested in this AFD- yet another non notable IRA member. Astrotrain 22:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)