User talk:Womblewilly

Welcome!

Hello, Womblewilly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! DS (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. O Fenian (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. O Fenian (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "personal analysis". Please refer to what Arthur Griffith said at the time. He used the term murder. As illegal (by republican, unionist and any other standard applicable at the time), premeditated killings, these fit the definition of "murder" perfectly. As this was during a period of ceasefire, there is no way (even if you take the "informer" tag as a given) that these killings were anything other than premeditated and illegal. "Murder" is not a personal POV. It is a definition that fits the circumstances.

Your definition, but Wikipedia does not work on the definitions of editors. Arthur Griffith's opinion is already in the article, and there is no reason for it to be stated as fact. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my definition. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder. "Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter)." Womblewilly (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are applying that definition to draw your own conclusion. Not allowed per several policies linked at the top of this page. Now will you please stop edit warring to include bias, or you risk being blocked from editing. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit

Please revert back to the version before you edited. You have broken the three revert rule which you were informed about above, and I will give you an opportunity to avoid being blocked from editing. If you do not revert your edit, I will make the report shortly and a block is likely to follow. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken your feedback on the use of the word "murder", and dropped it, and made edits which a represent factually provable statements. I'm not sure which edit you are now refering to. My most recent one is to simply add "unlawful" and "alleged". Both of these are IMO justifiable edits, and the fact that I have taken on board and accepted your feedback should show that what I have changed, I have done so in good faith. I don't understand what you would find objectionable about these unless anything other than your POV is out of order.Womblewilly (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my final edit meets your approval. Womblewilly (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]