User talk:MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus

Welcome!

Hello, MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Just H 23:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use valid edit summaries[edit]

As a relatively new User with a red User page link, please make sure that your edit summaries are meaningful. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reply[edit]

Here is my reply to your comments on my talk page:

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]