Talk:Operation Demetrius

message: There is an image of the "burning of long kesh" out there too, which might fit in the article. Fluffy999 15:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont know either. I normally just reupload it with the same name, taking care to make sure the little drop down box doesnt have the focus when i hit submit- think thats what puts it off. The version I have of the burning is B&W with some kind of clothes line going across it. Fluffy999 17:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw the images got removed, im pretty sure that the top left one couldnve been HMSO copyright. Will keep an eye out for some of a decent quality. I enjoyed the article btw, but get the feeling someone will come along wanting to neutralise some of the power words used.  Fluffy999 16:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, pretty good article, but the second half of the first section needs a lot more citations. Pauric 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: Why is the main body of the article called "Background"? In fact there is no background at all except a short sentence saying internment had been used before. For that matter, why is the article called "Operation Demetrius"? There is no detail at all in it about the operation, which took place (not began) on the morning of Monday, 9 August 1971 (there is actually slightly more detail in the "Background" section of the Maze article). Scolaire 15:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the article should be renamed "Internment (Northern Ireland)"? Mooretwin (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: Sorry; not immediately relevant to this page.
But several Troubles and related pages have had their flag icons removed. The user who did so sees them as in violation of WP:FLAGCRUFT, though has thus far failed to specify how. Any opinions on this matter?
Simon Levchenko (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applicability of WP:FLAGCRUFT? 

message: reached out to me to review this again. I see my recommendations were fully ignored. Looks like the user just now made some sloppy subheadings (not sections) and did not heed the advice of how to approach this issue. Carefulacts, if you are going seek neutral, outside help then you should actually follow the advice given. You can not just do as you wish and hope for a different result. 's reverts of your edits is completely warranted since you have not taken the appropriate steps to actually follow very simple and fair recommendations on how to forward your arguments. Carefulacts, you also need to properly sign your posts with four tildas. The lack of signatures makes your arguments even harder to follow. I would highly advise not continuing to attempt to edit the article until you've actually followed the previous third opinion advice and have received CONSENSUS to make changes. The way Wikipedia works is to make a change, if that change is reverted, then discuss it on the talk page. Then, if and when consensus is gained, it can be added back. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , You did seek recourse and you are still continuing to ignore the advice given. That's the "fundamental issue". Also, stop putting ref tags around links in talk page discussions. It breaks the page and lists all the references at the bottom. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

text: , I think it's starting to become clear that you are only really seeking input from someone that will agree with you. I provided a solution to better frame your arguments which you put very little effort into implementing. You've also put virtually no effort into tidying up the mess that you've made of this talk page (unorthdox headings/sections/broken ref tags scattered at the bottom of the page). It's going to be hard for anyone to take your arguments seriously until you start to take yourself and your posts seriously. Also, you again should be reminded that Wikipedia is at times a slow process, particularly for articles that are about established subjects that aren't subject to much updating via current events. This article has been around for 15 years and you are proposing many scattered, but major overhauls. Waiting a few days or even a few weeks for another interested party to come by the talk page is completely reasonable. Until then, I would highly advise again to create concise and clear sections for each argument and cease attempting to add information to the article that you know will be challenged, as that can be broadly construed as edit warring. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Carefulacts you appear to fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Nobody is going to come along and say one person is right and the other is wrong and the article will be changed and that's the end of the situation. I have given many specific objections to your changes, pointing out you are ignoring the broader points the references you provided make. You have largely ignored this completely and insisted your changes are correct and I should revert to your version. I strongly suggest you take my objections into account and make new proposals. FDW777 (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Rather than continue to have the same circular discussions in different sections, this can be considered my reply to all sections. I still consider your changes to promote a fringe theory unsupported by references. Your original post at #6 major additions required for balance. makes it clear, to me, that you are attempting to introduce material sympathetic to the Unionist and/or British government to mitigate internment, when references are unanimous that one-sided internment was a disaster that made a bad situation infinitely worse. FDW777 (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion update