User talk:Samboy/Archive3

I've deleted Temporary placeholder so I can move exclusive disjunction here as you asked. Cheers, Tonywalton  | Talk 10:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Bot]] 03:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Terrorism

Consensus was not reached, and what's more you did not even leave a comment on the talk page. I will have no choice but to contact a moderator if you do this again. --MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 22:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a while since my last post and you have not yet responded to me. Would it be alright if I edited the page to where it was before your revert?--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 22:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you're so upset over an edit that I made in response to comments posted to Talk:Christian extremist terrorism. Here is what happened:

You objected to the IRA (and two other groups) being listed as a group of Christian terrorists. [1]

I pointed out why I felt the IRA should be listed as a terrorist group. [2]

Nick Cooper felt that the IRA is motivated by nationalism [3]

In response to his note, I suggested a footnote [4]

This is a textbook example of how consensus is reached. My original point of view was that the IRA is flat-out a Christian extremist group. People, including yourself, pointed out that there are other motivations. I felt that adding a footnote was one way to reach compromise. Here is the point: I was trying to reach compromise.

Wikipedia's ultimate goal is to present objective truth to the world in a neutral manner. This is why we frown on original research; this is why we think it is important to have references. This is why we have the five pillars of Wikipedia. And this is why we have consensus--because, together, we can come up with something that hopefully resembles objective truth.

I welcome your contributions. Based on content on the talk page, I think you have a lot of knowledge about this subject that will ultimately benefit the Wikipedia. But, please respect other editor's points of view and try to find consensus. The article is not your article; it is our article.

I don't know why you keep reverting my attempt to come up with a compromise, and, yes, consensus. Please read WP:POINT. I know you're upset that we didn't accept your initial edits. However, this does not mean that we will reject your knowledge on the subject. It just means that we want you to work with us, not against us. Samboy 04:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I pointed out why I felt the IRA should be listed as a terrorist group." Ummm, only really die-hard Republicans would object to calling the IRA a "terrorist group", and today I don't even think many of them would object. If you mean "I pointed out why I felt the IRA should be listed as a Christian terrorist group" the problem becomes clear. The only proof that you've provided that the IRA consider themselves to be a "Christian terrorist group" is exactly that-- your feelings on the matter, which for an encyclopedia article I am afraid are quite insufficient. You have not given one iota of proof that the IRA ever claimed to be a "Christian group" of any type, that they claimed to act on Christian principles, etc. whilst I have provided proof of the exact opposite, that the IRA have claimed to be an atheistic-Marxist-Communist [terrorist] group! Until you can back up your ludicrous assertion with something the IRA has actually said, any mention of them needs to go. Ditto with the freedomites and the NLFT. --MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 16:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - about the Star Wars pages...

Greetings... (Please don't bite the noob) I've noticed your edit on the debate on the size of the Death Star, and since you've been here longer than I have, I figured I'd ask you a question about the controversy... Has anybody pointed out that the size of the thing can be figured out from the film by the old 'speed, time, distance' rule? As in those versed well in science can get the speed of the ships inside the Death Star, determine how long it took them to get out after blasting the thing, take into account the twists & turns, and get an answer showing that 900km size is impossible? Just curious... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.103.96.11 (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for the comment; you have a very legitimate point. The problem, alas, is that any such discussion on the Death Star page would violate WP:NOR. Now, it is true some pages do have original research (Gateway Handbook cough cough), but the rule definitely applies when the subject is controversial. Samboy 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]