User talk:Jnestorius/2005

This is an archive of past discussions with Jnestorius. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for annotating the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia from the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article. I suppose it isn't odd that a 95-year old article would be a decent source about regarding a state that was defunct 85 years ago. Even so, the age should be noted. Thanks for correcting that. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:09, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my flub up on reduplication. That's what I get for not reading my own writing. D'oh. Nohat 09:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Give me ten minutes :) Radiant_* 08:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Compare your reverted version to mine and see how much of the material you actually removed is "point of view", or fact. Are two extra significant events in 1986 and 1987 my point of view, or are they fact? Is the Warringtom MO my point of view, or fact? Is nearly 20,000 injured my point of view or fact?

Do you contest the IRA targeted civilians? Do you contest they seek a united Ireland based on Marxist principles? Did they not attempt to kill the Cabinet twice and murder several MPs? Is the support from US Senators and Congressmen my invention? Is Belfast in Ireland or Northern Ireland? Are the Loughall and Gibraltar events figments of my imagination? You clearly dislike any reference to the IRA targeting innocent civilians, which is a fact: what is the reason for this?

A thing I've noticed on Wiki is that people edit things they do not like or do not agree with, and either give no reason - or one that is totally irrelevant or not appropriate. If you are going to delete entries because you do not accept them as fact, it's best to read them first and be in posession of the facts yourself. Almost none of what you deleted is POV, and none are factually incorrect. Ironically, your claim that the facts I added are my point of view is just your point of view. And your point of view is not supported by history.

So the IRA is not a terrorist organisation. That's news to the rest of the free world.

Indeed there was a fair amount of substantive fact in your edit, and I would welcome the reinsertion of that into the article. However, this was intermingled with POV elements. Rather than require other editors to disentangle the good-quality material in your edit from the POV portion, I would respectfully ask you to try to do this yourself before resubmitting it. Some examples of what I mean:

• 20,000 civilians killed or injured certainly deserves mention, but you mentioned it twice. This does not reinforce the point, it smacks of argumentativeness, as does repetition of the phrase "innocent civilians".
• "Terrorist" is one of the Wikipedia:Words to avoid. The article is already in Category:Terrorist organizations in Northern Ireland and there is a long footnote discussing who uses the word "Terrorist" to describe it. The bald use of the word in the opening sentence is inconsistent with this.
• Changing [Ireland] to [Northern Ireland] is useful as it is less ambiguous and more specific. Changing [Ireland] to [Northern Ireland, UK] is intrusive. People who don't know already where Northern Ireland is will hardly have read that far. Changing [England] to [England, UK] is pointless. [Gibraltar, UK] is factually incorrect.
• Phrasing such as "Again, Sinn Fein/IRA cry foul", "allowed their innocent countrymen to suffer the ordeal of wrongful conviction and imprisenment", "an event largely forgotten by history" "lesser known or publicised" are editorialising. State the facts: they can speak for themselves.
• "The evidence in support of the accusation is huge, though a more likely reason for the activity is diversification" this statement seems to contradict itself.
• Misspellings (TRepublicans, the Kennedy's, imprisenment) are always intrusive. In the context of a substantial edit, many Wikipedians will see them as evidence that a contribution was written in haste.

I hope you don't find my comments insulting. I believe the Northern Ireland material in Wikipedia does tend to reflect Irish Nationalist bias of editors more than Unionist bias. Any editors able to remedy this are very welcome. Joestynes 10:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for my angry post: I am senstive about this subject because my brother was a soldier killed by the IRA (by a man now a Sinn Fein councillor).

I accept your opinions on this matter. Thank you for your reasoned and helpful reply.

Jay K

Thanks for replying, and for your recent edit to PIRA. Joestynes 09:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The edit you mention wasn't a mistake though it probably should have come with some kind of explanation and I don't know why I flagged it as minor. Please take my word for it that it wasn't intended as a sneaky edit. People generally don't get away with those anyway. I suppose it's a slightly daft thing to be have disagreement about but I've just put my side on Talk:Flag of Ireland. Iota 18:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to quickly apologise for my edit yesterday. I've used plenty of other wikis but this was my first wikipedia edit and I didn't know to check the discussions. I also wasn't aware of the sock-puppet problem (I've created a profile now). I'll try to explain my point in the discussion when I get a chance. Regards, Neil

Yes, I did know, but I didn't notice the spelling error when I selected the suggestions to use for the update. Thanks for pointing it out, I've corrected it now. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 08:40 (UTC)

I thought I saw it in St Patricks - not ChristChurch --ClemMcGann 22:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the stub category is a sub-cat of this category, the category should still be listed separately. That's always the way with stub notices and categories, they are independent of each other. Stub categories aren't "real" categories as such, they're kind of temporary categories - it's assumed that every article will be expanded beyond stub length eventually. And it doesn't make any sense to split up the main category in two just because some are stubs. sjorford #£@%&$?! 13:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I don't know that I agree with that policy, but I guess I'll live with it. Is there a Wikipedia: page explaining it? Joestynes 13:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit. Keep up the good work! Blackcap (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I responded to your request to merge neoliberalism with liberal theory of economics here. Two different policies my friend! --sansvoix 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you merged the two different merger discussions (Neoliberalism->Liberal Theory, and Liberal Theory->Classical Liberalism) into one, and stitched in a two way vote as well. Perhaps it would be better to keep the two topics seperate, but on the same page? --Maybe have the votes after the discussions as well? It is confusing for me to read, and I'm familiar with the discussion! Thanks.--sansvoix 21:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 03:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, don't know how that happened - I could swear I just went in and edited that one line out. Oh well, thanks for catching it! sjorford (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]