User talk:MatOregan

Welcome!

Hello, MatOregan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Time did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. - DVdm (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cathal Ó Searcaigh controversy

Hi, and thanks for your edit which, after a chat with Cathal himself, I decided to revert. I'll explain why. If you were in Ireland about 12 years ago, you'll know that the whole story blew up into something very big indeed. There was a period when, almost literally, you could hardly turn on any sort of chat show on the radio or TV without the controversy being talked about and argued about, often with quite extreme and polarised views expressed. Child Protection somehow got involved even though it was fairly quickly established that none of the young Nepali men closely or peripherally involved with Cathal was technically a child, i.e. none was under the legal age of consent in Nepal (16). It was a 'trial by media' and for a while it wrecked Cathal's reputation. He still hasn't fully recovered, although happily it didn't seem to sour his poetry, which has continued to pour out.

In recent years I've been keeping a watch on Cathal's Wikipedia page and Vicipéid (Irish Wiki) page, and occasionally I have to revert vandalism, usually horrible allegations of paedophilia, but otherwise the whole affair seems to have receded into the past and there's less emotional turmoil when people talk about Cathal. The paragraph on the 'Fairytale' controversy used to be several times longer, and we took a carefully considered decision to reduce its prominence, in parallel with the reduced importance people in general seem to give the question nowadays. To include a lot more detail runs the risk of giving the impression that the matter has not resolved itself, and also risks overshadowing Cathal's importance as a poet in the Irish language, an importance which is hard to overemphasise. And of course, greater visibility also acts as a magnet for trolls.

I hope you see the logic and the psychology of taking this position, and still I'm genuinely grateful for your effort, which was obviously well intentioned. Dmhball~enwiki (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine Gael

No, I have no intention in starting an edit war on Fine Gael. But I do prefer a neutral article without framing. The Banner talk 21:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean this in good faith. Edit warring is the practice of changing an edit because of a dispute. You do did this by repeatedly changing the section on the party merger and removing the photo relevant to the history section. There is no "framing" in how these parts of the article. The ideology of the Army Comrades association was Catholic ultranationalism (also known as fascism and Eoin O'Duffy was a founding actor in Fine Gael. In fact, later in the article are other photographs which could be seen as "framing". For example, saying that the party claims Michael Collins as part of their legacy. I decided not start an edit war over this "framing". As you seem mistaken on neutral point of view, I'd advise you re-read WP:NPOV.--4B43IU 11:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." I don't think any more needs to be said, and I've explained why this is out of balance in the section below. Uses x (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I advice you to read Blueshirts#Were the Blueshirts Fascists? where it is stated that they had some fascist traits, but were not fascists. So claiming they were plain fascists is clearly wrong. The Banner talk 13:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Edit on Fine Gael

Hello, I've undone your recent edit on Fine Gael as I believe it does not conform to WP:NPOV. Eoin O'Duffy was only one of the four founders of Fine Gael, and he resigned not long after. Therefore, his involvement in the party isn't enough to warrant adding the Nazi salutes of the Blueshirts to the article, and implying the origins of Fine Gael are therefore "fascist". If you have a problem with a revision (I'm not the only one to undo your edits), bring it to the talk page of the article (using Template:Reply_to to call the user) or the talk page of the user and sort it out there, don't just re-add the content. And no, my POV does not "align closer to Fine Gael", like what you've described about the other editor. Uses x (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus Costello

In this edit you suggested that "The agreement on the Derry page was that the county was Derry and the city was Londonderry". See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Derry/Londonderry - "Use Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county in articles." Alekksandr (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]