![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From Northern Ireland is factually correct and neutral, Northern Irish isn't. BigDunc 12:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed the opening paragraph of the "Problems" section as it is WP:RECENTISM. The LVF was founded in the mid-1990s and disappeared around a decade later. How can vocal support which lasted only for a few years be considered part of an established pattern? The opening sentence was also being used to try to imply there was an established pattern for the rest of the paragraph to detail and to avoid claims of recentism.
The 1999 fued bit i think passes though as we aren't trying to imply there was a pattern - i think. Mabuska (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
What proof is there that i am a so called "loyalist"? If i am a so-called loyalist editor then how come i got involved in an edit-war with Factocop who kept trying to remove the Gaelic version of Eglinton from that article? Why did i argue at length with him about it? Then there was the time i reverted an editors addition of unsourced bias loyalist propaganda. Yes very loyalist actions. No point warning an editor who you already warned and blocked. Though having noticed there is another IP at play, i've warned them.
Regardless, Eamonnca1 your opening statement is bogus and extremely misleading. If you notice i said the incident in the bar is okay, though i had to reword it from the biased slant you gave it. So how does that qualify as me wishing to remove all instances of terrorist association or incidents from football articles? GAA fans sectarian abusing a Protestant player is not very different from Portadown F.C. fans shouting terrorist slogans in the mid-1990s - yet one is okay for you. IDL works both ways, though who said IDL it?
Though having examined the statement more closely, it isn't worded that badly or imply there is a pattern in regards to Portadown F.C. so i may have gone off on one for no real reason then - however there should be more than one source used for the opening sentence as only one source doesn't provide it with a great amount of weight. Mabuska (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Portadown F.C.. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From Northern Ireland is factually correct and neutral, Northern Irish isn't. BigDunc 12:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed the opening paragraph of the "Problems" section as it is WP:RECENTISM. The LVF was founded in the mid-1990s and disappeared around a decade later. How can vocal support which lasted only for a few years be considered part of an established pattern? The opening sentence was also being used to try to imply there was an established pattern for the rest of the paragraph to detail and to avoid claims of recentism.
The 1999 fued bit i think passes though as we aren't trying to imply there was a pattern - i think. Mabuska (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
What proof is there that i am a so called "loyalist"? If i am a so-called loyalist editor then how come i got involved in an edit-war with Factocop who kept trying to remove the Gaelic version of Eglinton from that article? Why did i argue at length with him about it? Then there was the time i reverted an editors addition of unsourced bias loyalist propaganda. Yes very loyalist actions. No point warning an editor who you already warned and blocked. Though having noticed there is another IP at play, i've warned them.
Regardless, Eamonnca1 your opening statement is bogus and extremely misleading. If you notice i said the incident in the bar is okay, though i had to reword it from the biased slant you gave it. So how does that qualify as me wishing to remove all instances of terrorist association or incidents from football articles? GAA fans sectarian abusing a Protestant player is not very different from Portadown F.C. fans shouting terrorist slogans in the mid-1990s - yet one is okay for you. IDL works both ways, though who said IDL it?
Though having examined the statement more closely, it isn't worded that badly or imply there is a pattern in regards to Portadown F.C. so i may have gone off on one for no real reason then - however there should be more than one source used for the opening sentence as only one source doesn't provide it with a great amount of weight. Mabuska (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Portadown F.C.. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)