This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Calabraxthis (talk | contribs) at 08:21, 31 January 2009 (→Dunmanway massacre: Fourth Opinion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:21, 31 January 2009 by Calabraxthis (talk | contribs) (→Dunmanway massacre: Fourth Opinion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| en | This user is a native speaker of the English language. |
| ga-1 | Tá Gaeilge de chaighdeán bunúsach ag an úsáideoir seo. |
| fr-1 | Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français. |
| it-1 | Quest'utente può contribuire con un livello semplice di italiano. |
| es-1 | Este 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)