User talk:Breen32

Hello Breen32, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! ----BigDunc 21:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Getting Started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Comunity Portal

Getting Help
Help pages Where to ask a question New contributors' help page Cheatsheet
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution

Here is a list of usful links you might want to read before you start editing enjoy.BigDunc 13:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Ad_hominem

Tendentious_editing

Dont Be a Fanatic

Verifiability

Undue Weight

Troll

Edit summary

Straw Man

Talk Page Guidelines

—Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDunc (talk • contribs) 13:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:British overseas territories[edit]

Hello! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:British overseas territories are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Thank you and happy editing. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 13:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Orange Institution[edit]

Hello! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Orange Institution are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Thank you and happy editing. VirginiaProp 15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel he made a contribution to disscusion on OO article and this advice is unwarrented. BigDunc 17:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breen32 made a comment on someone else's comment. Breen32's comment did not address the actual issue involved in the dispute. Getting into partisan bickering on the talk page of an article is against WP policy - WP:TPG#Others' comments. VirginiaProp 17:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breen32 made a comment on the discussion so far. A a party to the discussion I fail to see the point you are making. There are comments though on the discussion which should have caught your attention, but you apparently missed them. Describing sources as "Bigots" is one. --Domer48 17:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the discussion - which is voluminous and vociferous - seems to me to be contrary to WP:TPG#Others' comments. I caught Breen's comments because similar non-relevant and POV comments had been added to another article that I was watching. Misdeeds by many should not excuse misdeeds by one. I'm sorry if Breen, and you by proxy, feel slighted. Many others deserve similar comments - my failure to be able to comment to all should not act as an excuse for Breen's comments. VirginiaProp 17:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A paradox has been made on my behalf,no need for failure on virginia props misdeeds,mixing words happens to the best of us..A real proxy was sent my way earlier to day,by virginia prop and chris b..obviously my comments are revalent to some..Breen32 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are ok on a discussion, as long as they don't end up on the Article. If Editors are going to use the term POV, (Point of View) towards another Editor, could they use Diff's (links) to back up their opinions? --Domer48 18:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of POV was in reference to comments concerning "rape" and "pillage" made on the talk page for the British Overseas Territories article. I did not think that Breen's comments on the Orange Institution were POV, rather they were merely not directed towards improvement of the content of the article. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. VirginiaProp 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the comment on "the rapeing of natural resourses," but could not find one on "pillage." This search was frustrated by the fact that the comments were removed. Is it possible that your use of the term "pillage," means "the rapeing of natural resourses," in the classical sense? As to removing comments you don't like, that is frowned upon, in wiki, and would be considered common sense. --Domer48 16:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the removal of comments because one doesn't like them is frowned upon. In fact it is contrary to WP policy. If my removal of the non-relevant comments was because of my personal disdain for them, my actions would be unjustifiable. Rather, as has been explained several times, both in the edit comment and on this page, the comments were removed because they were not relevant to improvement of the article. Please see my comments, supra, where I reference the precise WP Talk Page Guidelines that specifically authorize removal of comments not relevant to improvement of an article. Frankly, I have no personal interest in either the Orange Institution (or Orange Order as some seem to argue) or the British Overseas Territory topics. I was watching the British Overseas Territories article because there was some reference to the Colony of Virginia, a topic about which I have some personal interest. I saw the non-relevant comments and acted in accordance with stated WP policy. Please do not try to recharacterize my comments and set up a "straw man" argument. I have no personal stake in what appears to be a hot topic of contention among people interested in the politics in Ireland and Northern Ireland. One of the prime tenets of WP is that every editor assume the good faith of other editors. You may disagree with my reasons for the removal, but please do not characterize my motives as bad faith unless you can make the charge with specificity.VirginiaProp 17:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that been said virginia prop,where in the guide lines does it say that you can add words (ie..pillage) to another persons edit of a topic that you say is not of intrest to you..Breen32 19:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add words to anyone's edit. I paraphrased your original comments based on my memory. I just reviewed your original comment, which is reproduced below.

--what classical revelence?--
Invading another country under the flag of slavery for no other gain than profit,the rapeing of natural resourses and genocide for want of another word does in no way inhibit the term "classical sense"Breen32 12:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, it is clear that you did not use the word "pillage." Rather, the inflammatory words you used were "rapeing" [sic] and "genocide." I apologize for my inadvertant mischaracterization and any resultant confusion. I think that I have said everything that I have to say on the subject and I do not intend to be drawn up in internecine conflict over controversial topics. VirginiaProp 19:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than act as a watchdog for WK guide lines and paraphrase what other users respect by useing terms like "rape of natural resourses" and "genocide" which are accurate in reguards to the topic as a whole,and indeed words which i intend to uphold in my intrest and edit of the origional comment on the miss use of the "classical sense" phrase,maybe you should understand the root cause of invasion and inperialism by the british-which proven truly is inadvertant and inept to someone with no real intrest in the topic but upholding "guide lines"...no real need to apologize virginia prop..in every topic theirs a right and a wrong..Breen32 00:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Have you ever contributed to wikipedia using another username?Traditional unionist 17:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No i have not,but it is most entertaning to read and edit truths and untruths alike dont you think...Breen32 18:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have made very few edits to the mainspace. When you do begin to do so, please make sure you are aware of WP:NPOV first.Traditional unionist 19:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breen32, read through the links at the top of the page, in your welcome note. If you need any help with anything just leave a message on my talk page. If I can help I will, if not I will point you to someone who can. --Domer48 19:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a newcomer to wikipedia,hence my few edits,but significant to those with an open mind,other than that my <npov> is just not neutral to you,this is a source for facts and fact based views,which i made in response to your defence of the sectarian topic..Breen32 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breen32 it is only fair to let you know that Traditional unionist has accused you of being me. [1] (Just click on this link). Don't find this of putting, User:BigDunc, is also supposed to be me. I've been down this road already, just let is pass over you, and enjoy editing Wikipedia. There are many good editors and thousands of articles. Regards --Domer48 21:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately for both of us Domer48 i am me and you are you as it would seem,flatterd all the same,like your views...can i admit that without rouseing the other users....?

Rousing the other users, you may have just brought a plague down on your house! From your attitude, I imagin you will be well able to handle it! You take it handy. --Domer48 21:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have roused them alright but (and this is twice today) I agree with Traditional unionist in so far as read WP:NPOV. But keep up the editing and dont let them grind you down. Stick to the facts and you cant go wrong. BigDunc 22:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if we all talk at the same time, a star will appear in the northern sky, and someones arguement gose sout for the winter. --Domer48 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would have to find 3 seperate articles or major edit conflict. BigDunc 22:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should not have said that Domer stars and northern sky is that a secret code. BigDunc 22:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious metaphor. --Domer48 22:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A riot?[edit]

This one by any chance? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proper riot indeed..I belive there was a man from finglas on the roof at one point,i think his name was mick,we all called him 'mad mick' after that..a well earned handle..Breen32 (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, during the first day the roof was probably the safest place to be in the prison. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theirs a methapor in there somewhere.....Breen32 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although actually I lied. David Bowen was being held on remand for stealing a pair of curtains, and got let out of his cell during the riot ended up on the roof before surrendering on the first day. Despite the prisoners from the remand and main prisons never meeting, he managed to get convicted of conspiracy to riot, and together with some other sentences ended up getting about ten years in total. Bet he wishes he'd never nicked those curtains now! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]