User talk:Traditional unionist

www.AnonTalk.com

Ulster Defence Regiment

I've noticed your recent input on the UDR article I've been trying to rewrite. I realise that others are going to want to tear your reputation to shreds because of a perceived conlict of interest (although why I'll never know ;) ) You do appear to have a better grasp of the editing policy than I however and I would really appreciate you talking part in the discussion where you'll see I've just asked some very direct questions to another editor. If you happen to have a year to read back through the last month's input on the discussion page you'll see that my perception is that my edits in favour of the regiment are being trashed to maintain an impression that it was corrupt.

All help greatly appreciated.

GDD1000 (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your viewing the material I've just included under the heading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Defence_Regiment#Both_Sides_of_the_Story

GDD1000 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even bothered to read the source? "The bombers moved cautiously in relay teams to evade security patrols. It took over 24 hours to transport the device. Up to 30 IRA people were involved." A parade of UDR soldiers was on its way to the war memorial for the service when the bomb exploded. The IRA said that was its intended target.

"I don't believe the IRA set out to specifically kill civilians," McDaniel says. "I think they made mistakes, probably with their intelligence on the time-table for the service, but the IRA was reckless about civilian life. Even if the UDR men had been there, they couldn't have been killed without killing civilians too.

Dose that say that the UDR were the target, of course it dose not, but you can not let that get in the way of you edit warring. Another example of your biased editing. --Domer48 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil or you will be reported and blocked. The source says "A parade of UDR soldiers was on its way to the war memorial for the service when the bomb exploded. The IRA said that was its intended target." So to answer your question, yes, it does say the UDR were the intended targets.Traditional unionist (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOR - Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages nor on passing comments. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. Now there is three ways of reading this 1) was the UDR, 2)was the cenotaph and 3) was the parade, its open to interperatation, so it can not be used.--Domer48 (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source says the IRA felt their target were the UDR soldiers, where is the inconsistency or ambiguity there exactly?Traditional unionist (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The IRA said that was its intended target." Now there was three things mentioned in the preceeding sentence, and you have picked one. Can you not conceed that? --Domer48 (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is ONE thing mentioned in the quote. Lets see it again. "A parade of UDR soldiers was on its way to the war memorial for the service when the bomb exploded. The IRA said that was its intended target.". See, UDR = target.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's three things mentioned in the quote - the UDR parade, the war memorial and the service. --Domer48 (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets try again. .Traditional unionist (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my considered opinion this is a question of sentence structure. Subject, object and verb. The subject of the sentence is the UDR parade, the object is the service at the war memorial and the verb (what they were doing) is "on its way". It's crystal clear to anyone who wants to read it. The UDR parade was on it's way to the service at the memorial and they were the target. Thank God for schoolboy Latin.GDD1000 (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IRA said that was it's intended target dont see the UDR was the target or service was target or memorial was target. It is an open statement with multiple interpretations BigDunc (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that quote:

“

A parade of UDR soldiers was on its way to the war memorial for the service when the bomb exploded. The IRA said that was its intended target.

”

Traditional unionist (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying and pasting from the UDR talk page here to assist in further clarifying this subject. It is now noted that the link to [1] also contains the words " Even if the UDR men had been there, they couldn't have been killed without killing civilians too." confirming that the earlier sentence did indeed refer to the UDR as the target. I think that settles that argument. GDD1000 (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what almost constitues an entire rewrite of this article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GDD1000/UDR. I have also informed the other interested parties on their individual talk pages that I am about to post these changes to the article. Perhaps you'd give me an opinion?GDD1000 (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Irish people

Hello there,

I think we're coming close to a consensus, but, it's between just two editors. I wondered how you felt about recent developments at Talk:Northern Irish people. Thanks, --Jza84 | Talk 11:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland

Hi,

I'd like to take the opportunity to advise you on two matters which, being a member or former member of the Northern Ireland WikiProject or it's sister project on Belfast, you might be interested in the following submission about a recent terrorist attack Wikipedia:Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board#News.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to ask for your help in reviving the Northern Ireland WikiProject. Given that there are only a small number of Wikipedians from Northern Ireland or interested specifically in the region, the project needs all the help it can get.

Cheers, --Setanta747 (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, TU - I left a reply on my talk page. :) --Setanta747 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

civility

It is infuriating, a breech of civility and unacceptable. Please remain civil or you will be reported and blocked. --Domer48 (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm failing to see that linked comment as a breach of civility - Alison ^❤ 07:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3RR violation

Per this case, I have blocked your account for 24 hours. Sorry about that - Alison ^❤ 21:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The injustice!Traditional unionist (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*meep!* :'( - Alison ^❤ 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Londonderry

That is Debatable. The issue is clearly a contentious one, tact must be shown. Have you any clear proof that the post is vandalized? It is clear that the london is obscured, no more no less. Keysstep (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/86.175.64.136

Please read my comment. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will remain civil and assume good faith, as I have done in the past. If you feel you were treated unfairly, I would encourage you to ask User talk:Alison to explain why she didn't block the anonymous user because she did block you. I assume, on her part, that it was an honest mistake. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't think I said anything I should not have said, except for my initial statement that "I don't feel sorry for you." Please do not leave me any more messages about this. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]