User talk:Weggie/Archive2

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)


 * [Reply on TFH's talk]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 My edition is a bit out of date.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, Wikipedia 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. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 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. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 14:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The discussion was at Talk:Derry. Please see in particular Talk:Derry. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 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 Wikipedia 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/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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 WikiProject_Disambiguation. I have disambiguated all the links for Bloody Sunday on Wikipedia. Please remember to disambiguate your links. Use Bloody Sunday (1972) which expands to Bloody Sunday. -- 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. I've also had issue with republican propagandists in Wikipedia (Vintagekits, I think you should refrain from using sectarian terms on Wikipedia) 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)

Thanks, will do. Jdorney 23:50, 7 February 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 warning for that but as the same IP has been previously blocked for vandalism I am inclined to let the  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)

Wikipedia: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)

Verify tag
If you've provided ref you're quite entitled to remove tag. Tyrenius 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC) I usually drop a note to ensure consensus. Ta Weggie 23:25, 1 February 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 22:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dublin Monaghan Bombings
Check talk page for this. Dermo69 18:52, 6 Febuary 2007 (UTC)

Sir Norman Stronge
Thank you for stepping into the breach of that, please help me protect the referenced information within this article from a bias user.--Couter-revolutionary 23:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I replaced the quote as to my count three contributers seem to have been happy with the quote, i.e. a consensus within the terms of the page. It may be an idea with anything as contentious as articles that address issues surrounding the troubles to fully reference everything according to wiki standards. Weggie 23:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, thank you. --Couter-revolutionary 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin McCaughey
I have added a "" template to the article Martin McCaughey, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Shyam ( T / C ) 07:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ruth Dudley Edwards
Hi Weggie

I see that you may made a number of edits today to the article at Ruth Dudley Edwards (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruth_Dudley_Edwards&action=history history). Unfortunately I have had to to revert them all for technical reasons. Sorry :(

Editorially, your changes appear to me to be a good expansion and improvement of the article, but unfortunately they were made to a page which had been converted from a redirect by a cut-and-paste move from Ruth Dudley-Edwards, rather than by the proper procedure of listing the article at Requested moves.

I am sure that the cut-and-paste was done in good faith by an editor who didn't know about the correct procedure, but as you may be aware, a cut0and-paste move is a no-no because it destroys the edit history. I had hoped to sort things more promptly, but only spotted the problem as I was bout to go out, and you edits were made before I got back, and you would have been unawre of the prob.

Anyway, the article is now back at Ruth Dudley-Edwards. I will use my admin powers to move it in the proper way to Ruth Dudley Edwards ... but unfortunately that will overwrite the history of your changes. I coukd have simply added your changes first, but that would make it appear that I was the author of them, which would be unfair &mdash; I don't want to claim credit for your good work!

There is a laborious techinical way that I could merge in your changes, but it's much esaier all round for you to simply paste in your revised version before I do the move. To do that, just edit this revision, and paste it into Ruth Dudley-Edwards, and drop me a message.

Sorry to put you to this trouble, and thanks in advance for your help.

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but you're getting me mixed up with someone else - I haven't made any change to the article since December and they to wikify the article? Weggie 11:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment below moved from my talk page to keep discssion in one place. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Her correct name is as above. I have NOT made any recent changes to this article so please withdraw your comments from my talk page. Also the correct procedure here would be to lease the hypenated page as a re-direct to the existing page that I last edited in December. Weggie 11:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Weggie, my mistake about timing: the changes were indeed made in December (my fault for trying to do this late at night).
 * However, the problem remains that your edits (which were all entirely proper) were made after a cut-and-paste move by User:Rbreen -- see this edit. It's that cut-and-paste move which now needs to be unravelled.
 * I have just done figured out how to use How to fix cut and paste moves, and you will find that Ruth Dudley Edwards now contains the full page history, with all your edits in place (the process of merging the edit histories was not as complicated as the instructions said it would be). Hope that's OK, and sorry if anything was unclear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to James Simmons
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Weggie! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bmembers\.tripod\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 19:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot
If the bot is not functioning correctly, it makes more sense to drop a note at the bot's talk page or that the talk page of the user who runs the bot. Notices about bot malfunctions should generally only go to WP:ANI if an immediate block of the bot is necessary. JoshuaZ 19:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Followed the link from the Shadowbot user page Weggie 19:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Assembly
Just wanted to say good work!--Vintagekits 11:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers Vintage - although I seem to have missed a few SDLP profiles. Hopefully find some time at the weekend Weggie 12:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Dominic McGlinchey
I'm a bit unsure what to do with this after you just changed the heading. There's already a Internment and First Active Service section, and ideally we should just merge that with the Paramilitary career section. However I'm then not sure where to put the Marriage and Children and section. Chronologically it's all over the place, but I'm open to suggestions? Thanks. One Night In Hackney 16:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How about Background and Paramilitary Activity as main headings - PIRA / INLA as sub-headings. Also, will be adding more about his extradition - he was the first provo to be extradited as the killing he was charged with was so horrific that it wasn't counted as a political offence Weggie 16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me thanks. One Night In Hackney 16:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit following
Are you following my edits? It seems every article I've edited relating to Northern Ireland of late, you're in there a couple of minute later changing something. Oh this isn't an accusation, just a comment. Keep up the good work. Ben W Bell  talk  12:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep - Much of the stuff you're doing is on my watch list - I started many of the NI politician biogs etc. I've had a couple of quiet days in the office and adding a link or two eats a few seconds. Good work with the county dabs btw, I've made a mental note to keep to the full names Weggie 12:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. With the county stuff, I just feel that most non BI people won't have the first clue what Co. or Co means, so I've been spelling it out. It's not a policy or anything, just something I thought should be done. Ben W Bell   talk  12:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Provisional IRA South Armagh Brigade
Can I just check which part (if not all) of this sentence you want sourcing? Around this time IRA engineers in south Armagh developed the home-made mortars which were relatively inaccurate but highly destructive. Harnden tends to contradict it slightly, saying they were produced by the Dublin based Engineers department but 8 out of 11 variants were first fired by the Crossmaglen unit. So would you be happy with changing developed to pioneered the use of or something similar? The destructive part can be sourced by Newry I'd assume? And inaccurate can be sourced by, well, plenty of misses. Also your user page says you're busy with election stuff, just in case you didn't notice I've made a Raymond McCartney article. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 19:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC) OK by me Weggie 16:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Blatant POV
If you are going to add blatant POV, peacock terms, weasel words and disparaging remarks to a number of the articles that you edit then you are going to lose a lot of credibility and encourage other on boths sides including myself to do likewise.--Vintagekits 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Vintage, whatever you think of another users edits, what you have just threatened would be a violation of WP:POINT. Instead, point out what you consider to be "blatant POV, peacock terms, weasel words and disparaging remarks", and then we can deal with the issue. Remember, we'll get nowhere if we don't assume good faith. Logoistic 00:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Murder vs killing
In reference to the recent edit war(s) you have been involved in over use of "murder" over "killing" (or words to that effect), please comment on the issue here so that we might come to a conclusion. Thank you. Logoistic 01:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Bobby McKee
I found a reliable source (the Belfast News Letter) for Mr. McKee's UVF membership and am about to add that to the article. Sorry for the "bad faith" language, but it didn't seem close to a speedy-delete candidate to me. NawlinWiki 01:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Torrens-Spence
I can do Torrens-Spence's article tomorrow if you'd like, if you don't intend to do it for a while. Please let me know, however, if you would like to create it yourself. Best wishes, --Couter-revolutionary 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do some work on it tomorrow. Please look after Sir Norman this eve', I feel a storm brewing and shan't be around to help!  Best wishes,--Couter-revolutionary 20:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

| Picture of the Day
Apart from a few minor edits, I'm off wiki for the season, but I couldn't let that photo go by without a "well spotted young man!", best wishes Fasach Nua 13:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

M62 coach bombing
Thanks very much for those sources, I've integrated them into the article. Could you give me hand monitoring this page for while, I suspect it will come in for some suspicious edits, and the important thing is to make sure all new information is provided in context with reliable sources. I had a look for an Irish Republican viewpoint which might balance it somewhat, but couldn't find anything except blogs, which are not allowed to be used as sources (and were appallingly spelled anyway).--Jackyd101 14:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do - nice work Weggie 15:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Generals
Where does it state that generals are always notable, I cant find it, maybe you can show me. regards--Vintagekits 16:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * precedentWeggie 16:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you show me the discussion which outlines this or the section within the policy.--Vintagekits 17:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I can remember the particular case I'll pass it on Weggie
 * Not impressed with this behaviour to be honest Weggie, your credibility has slipped because of this. I am going to reinsert notability tags, if they are removed again before notability to proven then I am going to AfD the article and it currently does not show notability.--Vintagekits 17:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * - Kittybrewster 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your bot
...or whatever it is you're using is leaving weird edit summaries. Tyrenius 23:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Hmmmm - I'll get a new version. Ta Weggie 13:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sean Murray
Orange Order and BBC and RTE all describe it as a parade not a walk. Would you have any objections to me changing it back? If there's a discussion regarding the use of walk over parade in general somewhere please let me know obviously. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 303 18:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not a biggy given that the Order call it a parade (walk / parade are the same thing / - the disamb should remain to walk) - the article will get a non-neutral tag soon unless the info on Murray's IRA terrorist conviction is restored - I've provided loads of links which took seconds to find. PS. please leave future questions on the article talk page Weggie 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)