User talk:SCVirus/Archive 1

Thank you very much for a new user welcome some 2-3 months after I joined. SCVirus 23:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I posted the welcome message when I saw an entry for a real account with a redlinked talk page in my watch list. Sorry about the delay, this is the first I noticed. I've gotten out of the habit of checking how long someone has been present before welcomeing because most people get something on their talk page pretty quick. RJFJR 19:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Dublin Metropolitan Police

Look, you must understand that Wikipedia is about fact, not what you want fact to be. Whatever nationalists called the city is irrelevant. It was called Londonderry by the government at that time, and the government set up the police. Ergo, they were the police of Londonderry. Fact. You can't warp facts according to your own political views (which are pretty obvious from your Userpage) and you can't change history to a version more palatable to you. -- Necrothesp 17:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You must understand that Wikipedia IS NOT ABOUT FACT. It is about taking a NPOV stance on facts and opinions. You could say they were the police of Londonderry, if that was some kind of official name or description (of the police force), obviously, but all that article is describing is the location in which they operated. Which is called Derry except by some ancient charter that has no bearing on the time in question, and by Unionists during formal speech. As long as people are willing to rise up against the conquering power in an area, the conquering power cannot just be considering 'factually the government', as clearly it is a matter of opinion. Just because you consider something a fact doesn't mean it is, just because your political views (which are pretty obvious from YOUR userpage) agree with a empire that attempted to conquer a people. The conquerer might write the history books, but it does not write Wikipedia. SCVirus 00:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about fact? What a bizarre statement. It's an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias are about facts. It is not true to say that the city is called Derry "except...by Unionists during formal speech". It is called Londonderry most of the time by a majority of the population of Northern Ireland. I also feel you're presuming rather a lot about my political views - I don't have a large flag and poems plastered all across my userpage! -- Necrothesp 02:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should learn a little about the name dispute, Derry/Londonderry_name_dispute would be a good place to start. Besides my personal experiance of what people call Derry, what I said is even supported by the wikipedia article on the subject. The only reason I say that Wikipedia is not based on fact, is because there is no way to prove something is a fact, as almost anything can be looked at another way, in this case Londonderry might be considered factual by the British Government at the time, but that does not mean a thing. Can you tell me how the total population of Northern Ireland, has anything to do with Derry? The majority of people in Ireland consider it Derry, it makes no sence to base the name of Derry on what a larger area calls it. In the time in which this article pertains to there was no was for the majority of citizens of Derry to change the name of the city in anyway shape or form, because of block voting designed to keep decendents of planted individuals in power. Intil The battle of the bogside and Free Derry (and other issues i'm aware of the oversimplification of claiming it was those two issues alone) there was not any kind of reasonablly fair voting, and guess what happened when they gained this reasonably fair voting? The cities name was changed to Derry (taking only ten years). Just because there was no real control of the city by the people of the city for 800 years does not mean that the empire who oppressed these people can name the city.SCVirus 02:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of the name dispute, thank you. I am merely saying that the city was officially, by the government (yes, that is officially, whether you like it or not - that's what the word means) called Londonderry at the time we are talking about. What it is called today is irrelevant, what it was called unofficially is irrelevant (even if was by a majority of its inhabitants), its official name at the time was Londonderry. Period. End of discussion. -- Necrothesp 18:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to absolutly positively disagree with you on that, just because the 'official' name was Londonderry, does not mean the name is Londonderry, especially when the government who named it had NO legitimacy. I guess that means I hold a different point of view on the fact then you... wait a second if I have a different point of view of the facts, then I guess that means what you believe is a point of view too! You know what that means, its not simply something that is definate and unquestionable like you would like to have me believe, it is a point of dispute, and a NPOV view of it must be reached.SCVirus 01:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a little question for you: In what way did the government have "NO legitimacy"? --Mal 06:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There had been no free election in which Irish people could decide there own fate until the 18th century, and that was a highly rigged system. Ireland had no say in English government policy, and as a result any acts done by them were that of occupiers and not of a legitimate government. In the context of the above argument that was fully valid as around ten years after the first non-gerrymandered local election in Derry, the name was changed-- very close to as soon as they possibly could in the grand scheme of things. SCVirus 23:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Provisional IRA

Seems fair enough to me. The exact figures are indeed mentioned firther down in the article, though it doesn't mention the facts that I had added. I'll add the same paragraph (or possibly a revised version) in the relevant section.

--Mal 23:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Message reply to you on my talk page. --Mal 06:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that the term was first coined by Unionists and simply caught on, I was unable to find a news report from the time, so I could be wrong. In any case whether the term was coined by Unionists or the British media, it was certainly not intended to be revenge for Bloody Sunday by republicans (there only link is the name which was not given by republicans). SCVirus 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - we can't establish whether the name was given by Unionists, British media, or local media. I would suggest though, that the name was most likely started by the media as they have a tendancy of doing things like that. Perhaps some commentator interviewed at the time (whether unionist, nationalist or apolitical) mentioned that it was a "bloody Friday", in respect of the lives lost and maybe as a reference to 'Bloody Sunday', and that stuck. The media coined the phrase "The Troubles" too I believe. And it isn't always necessarily the British media of course.

I agree, having read up more about it, that the event wasn't intended as revenge for 'Bloody Sunday'. It appears to have been done as a statement to the government, who had rejected Sinn Féin/IRA's demand to "give them" Northern Ireland during the negotiations just prior to the event. --Mal 00:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Article for deletion

Hi, an article you contributed to (Celtic Alliance of America) is being considered for deletion. Please feel free to have your say on why you feel the article should stay or go. Best, QuartierLatin1968 19:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Irish History

You seem like you have a lot a knowledge with respect Irish history so maybe you would like to comment on the historic basis of this term here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DownDaRoad (talk • contribs) 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

IRA Volunteer issue

Go to this page, an Indian guy is being forced by Loyalists and West Brit who are demanding that the rank of Volunteer is banned for describing the rank of members of the IRA – if you do not voice your opinion on this then they are going to get away with this bull Vintagekits 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The end of the mediation cabal on the term Volunteer is ending in two days.

The mediation process is ending in two days - you have two days to have you final say and 1. show any proof that Volunteer is a rank and 2. leave your final vote in coming to a consensus here. Thank you.--Vintagekits 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Roll of Honour (song)

I have nominated Roll of Honour (song), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roll of Honour (song). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Roll of Honour (song)

A tag has been placed on Roll of Honour (song) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

London's Derry

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article London's Derry, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of London's Derry. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)