Talk:John McKeague

message: By wikify, I pretty much mean split into sections instead of just a timeline. Things such as the pedophilia could be broken into a separate section, for instance. You might want to check some other famous person (pick your favorite and search!) wikipedia articles, to see how there's a summary of achievements up top, then more background information, then details and tidbits. Cantras 04:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's really no need to put such a short article into sections.  If you really feel the urge, then go ahead, but it certainly doesn't fall into the category of articles to be wikified - i.e. have wiki markup added.  It is already has appropriate formatting. Warofdreams talk 04:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That does not source what you tried to add to the article. O Fenian (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So? I know it only sources part of it but that should not make you revert that part, otherwise it appears you are determined to ban any new material that does not suit your purpose. The missing part you reverted as it dealt with a presumably living person (his injured sister) but getting a bomb in your shop that killed one of your customers would make even you sit up O Fenian. And so I think it is worth adding to an article about a man who seemed to attract as well as dish out violence. Would you now unrevert? 86.150.37.115 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe my edit summary made my objections clear, and also made clear what might overcome them. O Fenian (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Which comment on this talk page do you think constitutes abuse? You seem to be crying wolf here. CAIN does not actually say whether it was a random act or not, which is why a secondary source is needed to add relevant context. O Fenian (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need a steward's enquiry to prove any bombing was random or targetted. Get real O Fenian. Do you think the Catholic customer was the target??? McKeague was seriously unpopular hence three fatal attacks on him and his premises. A pattern of similar facts perhaps as the law would allow in evidence? Go and edit war on better grounds in other articles.--Fynire (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  And that above is what is called synthesis. BigDunc 11:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not synthesis to record in an article about a violent man violently killed that another fatal attack occurred in his premises killing one of his customers. What is your problem with this? Utter pedantry or undifferentiated edit warring? --Fynire (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you provide a secondary source. BigDunc 12:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

text:  Secondary source for what in particular? The Irish Times reported it on 4 April 1975. --Fynire (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I see you have still not provided a secondary source that establishes relevant context. The History Ireland article (which I see you have rather oddly claimed has a more flattering title than the actual title) provides no real context. Was it an assassination attempt on him? It seems unlikely, as a bomb in a building is a rather inefficient assassination method when one person is being targeted. I also note that your basis for restoring the part about him protesting his innocence that it is sourced. In addition to the adage that BigDunc pointed out that prison is full of innocent people, you seem to have been rather selective in your use of the source and failed to include any of the other information from the article, only choosing to include McKeague in a more flattering light. O Fenian (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this a new edict that a secondary source has to establish relevant context? It is not in the extensive Wiki rule book. 
So the the Grand Hotel bomb was not an attempt to kill Mrs Thatcher? What crap you spout to confuse O Fenian. Are you such an expert with great military expertise such that you know when no warning bomb is meant to destroy property rther than kill? 
You add any other bits from the article you like. I won't object. I try to elucidate not flatter or justify. --Fynire (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikify

message: Edit - The author who changed my edits is obviously biased. John was alleged to be many things and to put it in the context that it is fact is unfair. I will continue to re edit every time you do for the benefit of others. 81.99.85.199 (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Threatening to edit war will get you nowhere. O Fenian (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New discussion

message: Section needs re-writing; self-contradictory as currently written. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: SDA

message: The article has been considerably expanded and is looking very good with well-sourced information added and sections.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw shucks, you're too kind :) Keresaspa (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Looks good

message: "his promiscuous homosexuality with teenage partners"
Surely that's outright spin? The man was a child raping serial killer. 46.7.28.113 (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And your evidence for this claim (which might indeed be true) is what? Billsmith60 (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sexuality"