Talk:Gerry McGeough

message: My version is grammatically and factually accurate. There was no reason for it to be rv with NO EXPLANATION!!
This is borderline vandalism.
216.194.1.32 13:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi mate, it looks to me like you deleted referenced material without explanation. Lets talk about your edit here, what exactly is you problem with that section? slan!--Vintagekits 14:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article was automatically  assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I'd like to add the following to the main page and any help/discussion would be appreciated.--Pamela Somers (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide a more complete citation? Book number, etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Thank you, perfect. There is no preview of the book online. Would you mind just giving a brief quote from that page? It is important in situations like this to accurately capture the author's point of view. I would hate to accidentally substitute another's. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Sorry for leaving that sitting for a month, I kept meaning to do it. I have now made an addition based on this conversation. You can see the changes at this link. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tim Pat Coogan's book  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gerry McGeough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927203138/http://www.u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?pt=n&id=79618 to http://www.u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?pt=n&id=79618
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: My edit at 12.52 on 10 June 2018 was deleted (without any comment on the talk page) at 12.59 on 10 June 2018 with a reference to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. That page is about minority viewpoints on issues where there is a dispute about facts. In this case there does not appear to be any dispute that the subject made the statements referred to - indeed the source provides a link to the interview where the statements were made. I therefore propose to reinstate my edit referred to above. 
I will delay doing so for a reasonable period, to enable User:DagosNavy or anyone who wishes to do so to comment here. If no-one does so, and as a result I restore the edit, I invite anyone who disagrees with it to state their views here and allow a similar period before removing it. Alekksandr (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Alekksandr, I have just restored your edit. I had removed the section on the wrong basis that the statement fall under the scope of WP:UNDUE. Reading your comment, however, I found that your point of view is right; since the statement is not disputed by reliable sources, then the section should stand in the article. I have used the same rationale in a number of disscusions in the past. My concerns about neutrality, however, continue. "The News Letter" alignement with Unionism makes it a partisan source, so at least a proper inline attribution is needed. I also think we should merge the section into "Arrest and conviction", to avoid giving excessive weight within the article to a biased source. Best regards.Darius (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for this. I note that Irishlegal.com - which as stated in its 'about' page is a 'daily news service for lawyers in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland' reports that Mr McAlinden had made his statement in a letter to the News Letter. I would be happy to use this article as the source, rather than the News Letter, if that would allay your concerns? If Irishlegal.com counts as an unbiased source, then I suggest that the material should remain in a separate section - on the basis that a 2016 attempt to intimidate (to use Mr McAlinden's phrase) is not related to a conviction for an attempted murder in 1981. Presumably the same issue of partisanship/bias would arise if e.g. the Irish News published an article (in respect of which the factual content was undisputed) about a Loyalist paramilitary?Alekksandr (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on the judiciary