User talk:Demiurge/Archive2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Demiurge. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Re. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/[email protected] - endorsed. I'll add further detail tomorrow - Ali-oops^✍ 20:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Demiurge, thanks for stealing my thunder! I spent hours collecting data on this guy, and see that you go and beat me to it! Anyway, good job, I've endorsed and added some details. It's a pity that there's no policy WP:BULLSHIT, as this guy really takes the biscuit. When I can get over the the horrible bigotry, he does make me laugh, viz "Rangers...centuries old rivalry with Celtic" [1], his stuff about Celtic refusing to fly the Union Jack, although they "reluctantly" fly the Union Flag; all his stuff about "Caledonians" and "Hibernians" (gee - we're boldly marching into the 21st century, this guys stuck in the 1st century BC!). In his various guises, his main contribution to WP seems to be adding anybody with an Irish-sounding name to Category:Irish Catholics, Category:Irish-Americans, Category:Roman Catholic sportspeople etc. etc. Perhaps he's using WP as a "black book" pending the next Glorious Revolution??? Still, I better not go on, in case he accuses me of attacking him. Camillus (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Well, my little RfC seems to have sent him off the deep end, he's spamming the "irish fifth columnist/catholic apologist/croatian nazi scum" stuff over multiple users' talk pages now. We'll see if he puts in an appearance on the RfC page itself, should be interesting... Demiurge 22:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I await with bated breath. :-/ Must say I'm a little disappointed that I didn't get the 'nazi scum' epithet this time. Must be slipping up somewhere. - Ali-oops^✍ 16:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Who's Robert Sieger?? He may know more thank you think. Slainte. [email protected] 22:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hi again, Robert! - Ali-oops^✍ 16:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What is an RfC??

Thanks, lads!! Up the 'RA.

[email protected] 22:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, what's an RfC???

I'm a bit of an auld Luddite.

[email protected] 22:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest in the Irish-Scots article. I've got to admit that I'm growing very weary of Wikipedia - this was what led me to "admit defeat" on the RfC. I'll be interested to see how it goes, and your suggestions about ArbCom etc, but I fear that Rms will stop at nothing in his vile campaign - apparently he's retired, and has a lot of time on his hands, and a deep, deep well of hatred to draw from, as well as a vivid imagination, coupled with a fantasy-land view of Scottish and Irish history. I seem to be spending more and more time just looking out for vandalism, mostly from Rms, and I'm getting pissed off, and beginning to question the viabilty of the project. So it's good to know that other's are here to help - thanks again. Camillus (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• In my experience, the wheels of Wikipedia grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small. This project has seen off disruptive users much more resourceful and determined than Rms125a. (I agree though, the RfC is kind of useless in this case because it depends on the cooperation of the user in question. The next step in the dispute resolution is a Request for Arbitration, which is actually enforceable by administrators.) Demiurge 17:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop or you will be blocked

Are you a Keystone Kop??

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandubh Blathmac (talk • contribs)

• Hi again, Robert. - Ali-oops^✍ 23:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I see a number of reversions going on at Irish nationalism. This same editor went for Ian Smith and a number of other articles as well. Splitting the whole thing into single-sentence paragraphs, POV insertions, and describing everyone else's edits as vandalism? --BillC 20:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• That's the one; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/[email protected] for an RfC in progress on this user's behaviour. Demiurge 21:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Demiurge - just noticed that you had done a couple of reverts at Republic of Ireland and Culture of Ireland with the edit summary "rv vandal". It's a small point, and I hope you don't mind, but I prefer to use "rv test" for such petty edits as "dana is sexy" - I just feel it's more appropriate for such silly little things, which I often find are just newbies testing out if they really can edit a page. Also, when I see "rv vandal", I tend to be nosy and have a look to see what the vandalism was, in case it's a habitual vandal that I may want to look out for, and lighten some of the load on other vandalism-watchers, so I feel that "rv vandal" for such petty things is not really appropriate. Hope you take this note in the spirit it was intended, just a helpful suggestion. Camillus (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 20:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot provide a source. I was told this by a History teacher in school. Its a bit of word of mouth history. I won't change it until you reply here.--Play Brian Moore 11:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are reverting edits to this page by Brandubh Blathmac. I know nothing about this editor's history but the edits themselves were perfectly good - cleaning up spelling and formatting, and adding two categories. If you dispute Pavelic's inclusion in these categories we can discuss on the talk page - but I think it's pretty incontrovertible that he was indeed a catholic and a war criminal.Bengalski 13:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Probably because the editor in question is a rather well-known sectarian sock-puppet of Robert Sieger. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/[email protected] for further details. Note that Robert is capable of some excellent edits but unfortunately, he has some sort of strange Catholic obsession going on ... - Ali-oops^✍ 14:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

While I fully endorse the RfC against this character, I don't think we should fall into the trap of reverting all his edits - "Catholic" "war-criminals" do indeed exist, even if Rms seems to think the two terms are synonymous. Camillus (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I always read RMS's edits before reversion / editing. Some of the stuff is good and some is pure POV. POV gets reverted or tidied. I've no agenda other than that, really. I find it kinda sad that he refuses to enter into dialog/collaboration with other editors - Ali-oops^✍ 14:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Before reverting, please, elaborate why you are doing this - just referencing NPOV does not authorize you to revert the text--Purger 14:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for coming to help me. Demiurge is a known censor on issues as diverse as

1. ) American domestic terrorism which he demolished even after it was run by him for his own approval becuase of the negative implications for Irish-Americans in the Draft Riots, the Bombing of the Los Angeles Times Building and the Oklahoma City bombing, all of which were carried out by Irish-Americans

1. ) pre-Code Hollywood movies and the R.C. censorship of same for more than 30 years, which he attempted to gut because of the negative publicity for the Catholic church, and was only stopped by another third-party Wikipedian, who caught him at the time.

His associates back him up, but he carries censorship in his very DNA, and it is always his first instinct.

He is an automatic censor and it bodes very ill for Wikipedia that he continues to get away with his relentless censorship and mindless reverting of "blocked" (who are not blocked) alleged unproven "sockpuppet vandals".

Brandubh Blathmac 16:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A final decision has been reached in the above arbitration case, and the case has been closed.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I made some minor changes to Great Irish Warpipes and the changes don't update the Irish Related changes page. Wonder can you help here. Thanks! Bluegold 09:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think it's because List of Ireland-related topics links to Great Irish Warpipes, which is a redirect page to Irish Warpipes. If you change List of Ireland-related topics to link directly to Irish Warpipes the related changes should hopefully show up. Demiurge 09:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! that worked fine, but I think prefixing with the word 'Great' sounds so much better. Bluegold 10:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on it, but let me know if there are any interesting developments. His sockpuppetry and IP hopping have been extremely disruptive. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is curently a vote taking place on 2006 Dublin riots talk page on whether info on the pregnant woman incident should be removed. --Beta 11:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

He's at it again. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Which sock is he using this time? - Ali-oops^✍ 09:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• He's on Brandubh Blathmac (talk · contribs) today. A bunch of his socks (Aisling O'Cuiv (talk · contribs), BarbaraGlowniak (talk · contribs), User:Barbara Glownicka (talk · contribs), Trafalgar007 (talk · contribs)) were indefinitely blocked yesterday after a CheckUser test; looks like this one slipped through. Demiurge 09:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Cool, thanks! Looks like you just got to Irish-Scots the same time as I did. - Ali-oops^✍ 09:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• • New sock today; User:216.194.0.15 - Ali-oops^✍ 15:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

On the recommendation of two arbitrators on hearing the application for arbitration filed against User:[email protected] by you, I have made this edit on the administrators' noticeboard recommending that he be banned by acclamation. --Tony Sidaway 13:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for rv'ing the vandalism to my user page before I caught it myself! --Jeremy Butler 22:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Same here, Demiurge. --Kwekubo 18:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user 70.19.67.28 (talk • contribs) has left a message on my talk page concerning the Tim Pat Coogan article. He mentioned you specifically as a "censor and Catholic apologist." He also pointed out the fact that you accused him of being a sockpuppet. I noticed that you (and other respected editors) have reverted his changes to the article and deleted his comments on the article's talk page. I know there is some reason to believe that he might be a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, but I have encouraged him to initiate a discussion about the conflict. Collaborative discussion is, after all, the first step in dispute resolution. Anyway, I just thought I should let you know. If I have missed some overwhelming evidence that the anon is indeed the blocked user, I suppose it would be appropriate to continue reverting his edits and to consider temporarily blocking the IP address. --TantalumTelluride 04:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering this as well. As per WP:AGF, I tried to include the user's content in a less inflammatory manner, although I was unaware that the user had been banned. I don't know enough about the subject to decide whether the current version, or the version last edited by myself (which mentioned the anon's viewpoint) would be better. The fact that this user wants to edit it in this way seems to be evidence that such a viewpoint exists, and might deserve mention in the article. On the other hand, I know nothing of the subject. Anyway, it would be nice if you shed some light on the issue. I might end up doing some reading on it and then improving the article myself. --Anaraug 16:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Feel free to improve the article. The problem I had with Rms's edits is that they were POV in the extreme ("diatribe", "maintain the pose", "extremism") and weasel words ("it can only be concluded that") and the section he quoted made no reference whatsoever to irredentism or territorial claims of any sort. Demiurge 20:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I left him a message on his newest sockpuppet's talk page, politely asking him to stop editing, with a promise that I would include his, and any other viewpoints objectively. Hopefully, he'll abide by that. For now, I'm going to revert to my last edit, which is basically the current article, except that it mentions that other viewpoints exist, without using any words that I had to look up in Wiktionary, out of context quotations, purple adjectives, or poor formatting. If you still think that's too much, lets talk about it on the article's talk page. --Anaraug 20:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Taigs is still at it at Patrick Pearse. You might want to look at the talk page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 20:23, 10 May 2006 Arniep (dont just rv for the sake of it) (cur) (last) 13:07, 9 May 2006 Demiurge m (rv blocked User:[email protected]) (cur) (last) 13:04, 9 May 2006 216.194.58.64

Thanks, Arniep!!!

What weasel words did I use re Dinah Craik?? If you rv again I will simply have to show to Arniep as proof that you are a mindless and abusive censor.

Love. 216.194.2.161 17:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Robert - got another IP address to use to go around peddling your Catho-obsessed POV? - Ali-oops^✍ 18:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ali: What has Dinah Maria Mulock Craik to do with anything Catholic?? 216.194.2.15 04:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't recall saying there was any connection, Robert - Ali-oops^✍ 05:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of [email protected] has contacted me on my user page again to complain about you. Since the three-revert rule doesn't apply when dealing with indefinitely bolcked users, I don't see where you've done anything wrong. If he continues to cause you too much trouble, you should probably report him at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --TantalumTelluride^♪ 19:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, why are you calling Hobson'sChoice a blocked user? Who do you think he is? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• From his editing habits (reversing date formats, changing ext. link formatting, accusing various people of censorship [2][3], edit-warring on the same pages such as Irish neutrality), he's pretty clearly a sockpuppet of [email protected] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Demiurge 09:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Answered on User talk:Zoe - Ali-oops^✍ 09:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Given Rms's constant revisiting of this site despite his banning, there is now a template to be used when blocking banned users' sockpuppets. It is {{Blocked user}}. You can see its text at WP:TT. I hope this eases the problem of dealing with him. He still doesn't seem to grasp the fact that when Jimbo et al said "fuck off" he is suppose to "fuck off"!!! lol. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

216.194.1.148 (talk • contribs) has re-added Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford to Category:Catholic Converts. I saw that you reverted this before when User:Hobson'sChoice had added it. Should Lord Longford be listed in that category or not? And could the IP user above be Hobson'sChoice? JRawle (Talk) 10:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• The IP address above *is* the same user; Robert Sieger, now banned from WP - Ali-oops^✍ 10:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I realise it was a banned user who was editing, but according to many sources, for example [4] he did convert after meeting his wife, and when he died he was praised by the Cardinal. In this case the category would be correct. JRawle (Talk) 19:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Ok. Thanks for providing that cite - Ali-oops^✍ 20:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

what is your Problem I suggest raeding some wiki pages on mental health —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydstone (talk • contribs)

Please see my comments at User talk:Sydstone. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 05:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• I just reviewed the changes made by User:Sydstone to the Pat Kenny article and feel that User:Demiurge was justified in reverting; 1) Kenny did not take part in the Eurovision Song Contest, 2) 'wooden' is a far more accurate description than 'camp', what's all that nonsense about 'granny punching', 3) the theme music has absolutely nothing to do with either the Wolfe Tones nor Black and Tans. - Ali-oops^✍ 07:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  At the request of TantalumTelluride, I too have just reviewed the edits by Sydstone. I agree with Ali-oops: the revert was entirely justified. Ali-oops's summary of the problems is pretty much what I would have written, except that I would add that dragging spurious references to the Black and Tans into a discussions such as this is likely to be provocative, and I would be suprised if it was done without some degree of provocative intent. Also, the addition of the link to the "Sack Pat Kenny" petition was inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I will add a few further comments on Talk:Pat Kenny --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 09:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  Added my comments at User talk:Sydstone instead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Demiurge,

Thanks for cleaning up that vandalism on the Book of Kells.

Sincerely,

Mbrutus 03:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Demiurge, I saw that there took place a little editwar between an anonymous pighead (who stated to be a former INS employee) and you about the date of birth of the German actress. I live in Germany and I adressed myself to the Berlin authorities (see). 1961 is definitely correct. If the anonymous guy did edit the IMDb date - as he writes - he damaged this database, which is really a shame. Greetings to the beautiful Ireland --Bogart99 15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, I'm represeneting User:[email protected]. you resently suspected them of being a sock puppet, which they are not. I read the page where you posted your evidence. The "evidence" that you put there was niether vandalism nor lies. what this person posted was truthful and does not prove that they are a sock puppet, but a new user. To releave them, i am taking off the warning, until you can find me anymore proof that this user is a sockpuppet of said vandal. Bobcheezy 19:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• The evidence I presented was that User:[email protected] has the same editing patterns as User:[email protected] -- notably inserting external links in the format "(see [[5]])" or "(as per [[6]])", a free email address as their username, assumption of a fake "Irish-American" persona and referring to Wikipedia articles as "wikipages". I don't have proof, which is why the message I added said "suspected sockpuppet" -- there's a different one which says "proven sockpuppet". To see examples of similar sockpuppetry from this user, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/[email protected]. I'm not readding the sockpuppet tag for the moment; if it is Rms125a as I suspect, he won't be long confirming my suspicions. Hope this helps explain my edit. Demiurge 21:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• From User:[email protected]; '"I am primarily interested in politics and entertainment and hope to add something of value to anything I edit on Wikipedia. Please feel free to leave any constructive criticism, especially those amongst you from the Irish diaspora."' - frankly, I'm suspicious it's Robert again. He did the same thing with the Barbara Glownicka and Brandubh sock-puppets. As with all of Robert's edits, if they're okay, I leave them. If they're vandalism/POV/revert-wars/WP:MOS breakage, I tend to act. Same as with anyone else. For more info on Robert, see User talk:Ali-oops/Robert_Sieger - Ali-oops^✍ 21:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• wtf. User:[email protected] doesn't deserve this. technically they haven't done anything wrong yet. Unless you can prove that they did something WRONG rather than edit similarly to User:[email protected]. That is no reason to immediatly revert their edits. If they are not a sockpuppet, think of the harm you are doing to both this user, and wikipedia itself. Respond on my userpage. Bobcheezy 02:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • If they're not a sockpuppet, then why is their editing style so similar to that of Rms125a? Why do they edit the same pages in the same way (List of famous people with breast cancer, Irish neutrality), even down to making the same incorrect claim that Douglas Hyde was a unionist [7][8]. This is a prima facie case that this is another Rms125a sockpuppet, and I am not alone in this opinion. Please do not disrupt wikipedia by removing the suspected sockpuppet tag (which he is undeniably, a suspected sockpuppet) from this user's talk page. Demiurge 09:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I will not remove the warning, but you shouldn't be reverting the edits unless you can either prove they are false, or be proven as vandalism. Other wise, they should be free to edit wikipedia. Even if they are a sockpuppet, you shouldn't revert all of their edits unless they did something BAD to wikipedia. For all you know, in your revisions to these articles, you could have deleted some information they gave that is actually true. I respect your devotion to helping wikipedia, but prease, leave off this person until they do something wrong. P.S. WHAT did User:[email protected] do to wikipedia that was so bad that there is a whole search party after him? Bobcheezy 18:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • "P.S. WHAT did User:[email protected] do to wikipedia that was so bad that there is a whole search party after him?" Answer here and here, just for starters. His edit warring, POV, sock-puppetry and vandalism earned him an indefinite ban and the ire of many editors. Since then, he's been doing his best to evade the ban, which he largely blames on Demiurge and "Irish Catholic censors" - Ali-oops^✍ 18:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I also notice that reading through this talk page alone more than explains the situation re. Robert - Ali-oops^✍ 18:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • "Even if they are a sockpuppet, you shouldn't revert all of their edits" — my reverts are done under Wikipedia's banned user policy. I quote: "All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.". Demiurge 19:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • "Where there has been a case of mistaken identity, the victim of the mistake will normally make efforts to prove, by a whole series of means, that they are not the person you're looking for. This invariably sorts the issue out, and everyone can mutually apologise and carry on working on the encyclopedia together, in a renewed spirit of trust." This quote came from the very same policy that allows your reversions. If you notice, this user hasn't found very much of a way to appeal for themselves. They appear to be a new user that is very confused. I myself am still a fairly new user. My first project was creating an article but many admins teamed up on me and permanently deleted it. I know how it feels not being able to stand up, so they asked me to defend them. As the quote stated, many users that aren't sock puppets do not rant or argue about these issues themselves, but try to find ways in which they can inform you. If you haven't already noticed, I'm very aggressive when I am in a dispute on wikipedia. This is because I am experienced. Please consider this, and respond soon. Bobcheezy 03:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • P.S. The are only two reasons why i'm doing this. The first is because I feel a need to help the new users. No one helped me when I was new, so I'm giving a little bit back. Second of all, I am a member of the Association of Members' Advocates. It is my job to try to protect these users.
        • Well, if they're new and inexperienced, then why 1) are they now engaged in a revert-war on a number of articles and 2) why did they immediately report all this to WP:ANI, WP:AIV [9] [10] and various admin's talk pages? Why are they repeatedly requesting that User:Demiurge be blocked? Why won't they answer my comments anywhere I left them? Why won't they try to achieve concensus (as I did yesterday with Piaras Béaslaí) and work with other editors? etc, etc - Ali-oops^✍ 05:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Why, also, are they specifically reverting to Robert Sieger's POV? Gotta wonder ... - Ali-oops^✍ 07:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Demi - you might also want to check out [11] - Ali-oops^✍ 08:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I read what you posted on MaryLou's userpage. I now realize that it all adds up. I got a little caught up in trying to protect the new users that I sort of lost sight of the right thing to do. I'm sorry for putting you through this, (even though you've propably had to deal with this guys sockpuppets all of the time). My apologies for everything. If you need assistance in finding other sockpuppets of this guy, just contact me. Bobcheezy 01:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You have no need to apologize, you were just assuming good faith. Anyway, it's all sorted out now (until Rms's next sockpuppet that is). Demiurge 09:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the contributions of some random people from your user page when I came accross something interesting. I think the guy that's edit was the cause of an issue in the comment below this part of your talk page (User_talk:82.33.169.23) is a sockpuppet of User:[email protected] . He seems to be editing articles similar to User:[email protected] , and seems like he is rather new. Keep an eye on him. Bobcheezy 03:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hi there. That editor definitely isn't RMS. I did a check on the IP address and it's part of BlueYonder's UK netblock. Besides, hir POV is the opposite direction to RMS' - Alison^✍ 06:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Demiurge, thanks for dealing with that non-NPOV "bigot" section on Ian Paisley's page. It's always best if someone else adjudicates. I've left a message for the original poster of it (User_talk:82.33.169.23), so hopefully it should disappear for good now. -- (James McNally)  (talkpage)  21:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that section was a classic example of weasel words -- "regarded by some", "is seen as", "is thought to have", "is known to be". The allegations in the section (anti-Catholicism, links with loyalist paramilitaries, inciting violence) are covered in a factual manner elsewhere in the article, so I don't think the article has lost anything by its removal. Demiurge 22:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your addition to this article. That was important AND interesting information, and the fact that you cited a reference will really help in strengthening the article. - Dozenist talk 15:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

But not crazy. You have reverted at least 10 of my constructive edits. Ron Atkinson - all I did was restructure the article to seperate the racist comments section. It is also well document he only drinks lucozade. Please discuss this rather than simply "being bold" and deleting Everything I do.

I am not a vandal!! The radical anti-semitic paper published by Julius Streicher was suspended during the 1936 Berlin summer Olympics. Do you have any knowledge of Streicher or the Nazis??? You have no right to consistently revert or remove this. It is a founding principle of Wikipedia. I have tried to stay calm but you are so blatant in your removal of all my work that it is difficult. I have put the comment back and cited my sources, hopefully - though i do not hold my breath; you will leave it at that.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-olympics.htm

http://www.feldgrau.com/1936olymp.html

www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/olympics/zcd060.htm

I have more aswell as books but didnt include them as you are to much of a bigot to bother reading them.

Well, his request that acknowledgement be given to the opinion that Benedict displayed less than heroic resistance to Nazi oppression is, on its face, reasonable. But as you point out, I haven't been privy to what's gone before and I recognize that people generally get banned for a reason. That probably explains his reticence to edit himself. - Nunh-huh 01:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting vandalism to this article. I have put the issue on the admins' incident noticeboard, but no-one has taken action. Perhaps you might like to comment: [12]--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 12:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

How sad that you'll never be able to go on holiday again for the rest of your life!!

Stapletonian 00:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hello again, Robert Sieger! - Alison^✍ 06:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you Owwmykneecap 16:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW there are citations for those "Phrases in the Vernacular" Owwmykneecap 16:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see any of these "citations" in the section you keep reinserting. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Demiurge 16:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop hiding your vandalism behind wiki's policy, its clear as daylight what you are at. If you bothered to go to the link you would see citations from people who know nothing of this wiki, thats what you specifically asked for. Calling somone a vandal when they vandalise is not a personal attack it is stating a fact, you seem more than happy to call people such For somone who loves to flaunt WP:CIV you are anything but. Yourself, BlueValour and Ali Ops are not admins Owwmykneecap 17:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Someone talking about me behind my back? - Alison^✍ 23:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

What template should I use if I want an image deleted becuase it didn't have a source? T®eebark (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Template:No source seems like the best match. Demiurge 15:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that unsourced "John O'Connell" addition to the IRA article. I was just about to change it when you caught it. I am glad you are on top of it. It never ceases to amaze me that people add information to an article with no thought to providing a source or reference for said information. They may well be correct, but without a source, it cannot stay. At any rate, I wanted you to know I appreciate your efforts. ---Charles 19:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You had better delete the official website link then, as Celtic plc is a Public Limited Company and as you clearly know Promotional articles about …company or products are forbidden. I was not clear on the rules but as I am now I will not add the link to my un-official, non profit making and independent Celtic FC site. I feel my site breaks none of the rules listed below.

Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our

If you can justify your authority I won’t add the link again. Thanks, Webmaster, http://www.celticfcuk.bravehost.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celticfcuk (talk • contribs)

• See Wikipedia:External links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.". Also: "What should be linked to: Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one." Demiurge 21:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I have taken your advice on board but I still feel I am in no violation of wikipedia rules. Thanks celticfcuk

Why in ainm Dia did you remove most of the CTYI article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanequinlan01 (talk • contribs)

• Because it's completely unverifiable and the antics of a bunch of bored teenagers are not encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Also, the next time you make a threat such as this, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Demiurge 15:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hey Demiurge, speaking as a former CTYI student, I wanted to thank you for your work on the wiki page. The amount of crap that goes on with it is unreal, and it's heart-warming to see it have a good, professional looking wiki. Some of the stuff that goes up on that page is unreal =/

• Just another note of thanks for cutting the crap out of the CTYI article. If I see one more mention of the "Game" on that page I will be breaking some fingers. Possibly my own. Anyway, thanks again. --Nosmo 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I was a bit narky. I am putting back the CTYI customs article. It says who we really are.

Hey Demiurge.I have to insist that fine gael is not a republican party.irish Republicanism is the belief in the use of force to achieve a united irish republic.Since the civil war cumann na gaedhael and fine gael have been strongly against that.Indeed each of fine gael's toaiseach's since the start of the troubles have been strongly against the provo's.And i'd say Edna kenny made that remark to appeal to younger voters.Fine Gael is simply not a republican party Dermo69

• "irish Republicanism is the belief in the use of force to achieve a united irish republic." — that's not how the article defines it: "Irish Republicanism is an ideology based on the Irish nationalist belief that all of Ireland should be a united independent republic.". It goes on to say that republicanism is frequently (but not always) associated with the use of physical force. Are Sinn Féin no longer republicans now that they've (apparently) given up violence? Demiurge 08:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but i think that my definition is what people usually associated with republicanism and putting Fine Gael up there is misleading. Dermo69

Hi. Would you be willing to have a look at Follow-Follow? There's a long-running back-and-forth about whether to include the sectarian lyric or not. I've reverted to include the lyric three times, which is further than I would usually go. I think it's important that the actual words that make this a controversial song are included in the article. Please have a look, see what you think, and do whatever you think best. Thanks. --Guinnog 02:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you awfully mind explaining how putting up a paragraph on Traditions and Cults on the CTYI article is vandalism? Do you go or have you ever gone to CTYI? I have done CTYI courses since I was ten years of age and I did Session 1 in 2005 and 2006. The traditions are all true and are relevant to the article. Please do not keep removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanequinlan01 (talk • contribs)

• I've explained this to you before, the content is not verifiable and not encyclopaedic. Please stop breaking Wikipedia's rules by constantly reinserting it. Demiurge 17:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant to the article.That is what happens during the session. Also could you answer my question? Do you do or have you ever done a CTYI course? If not then you have absolutly no right to edit or remove that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanequinlan01 (talk • contribs)

• Read WP:V to see why it is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. I have never attended CTYI, but that doesn't make the slightest difference — WP:OWN. If you want to write a webpage about what you and your friends get up to during summer camp, go to myspace or bebo or somewhere, not Wikipedia. Demiurge 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does make a difference. You need to experience it first hand. I will edit the paragraph, however I am leaving in customs that occur every session in CTYI rather than in a particular year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanequinlan01 (talk • contribs)

• You still don't get it, do you? I (and other editors) will continue to remove this content until you can provide a reputable published source for it. Demiurge 20:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you cant stop other users who have actually been at CTYI. Go ahead try and edit it. It`ll keep coming back though I will not be putting back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanequinlan01 (talk • contribs)

• Keep reinserting it and you will be blocked. Get your friends to keep coming back and changing it and the page will be protected. Demiurge 20:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said I would keep re-inserting it. I never knew a page could be protected. Is it true?

Ah your first lie to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanequinlan01 (talk • contribs)

• Not a lie at all: Wikipedia:Protection policy. Demiurge 20:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Dont try and remove it again. Ill protect the article.

I awarded you this. Congratulations. --Guinnog 10:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! Demiurge 10:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yuo're welcome. You earned it. --Guinnog 10:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated Mairéad Farrell for peer review and thought you might be interested in having a look at it and giving me your opinion. Thanks in advance!GiollaUidir 01:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

i didn't say that the daily mail was racist or homophobic, i said some people see it that way, it is true, it may sound biased but it is fact, most people i speak to agree that it 'panders' to it, whether intentionally or unintentionally. i think it is a legitimate addition to the article, so i'll add it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.183.191 (talk • contribs)

• "Many opponents accuse" is an example of weasel words. Who were these opponents, when did they make the accusation, what were their qualifications to judge, and what exactly did they say? Not a big fan of the Daily Mail myself, but unsourced "some people think" accusations are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Demiurge 17:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

heres your opponents,http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=daily+mail, those people think its homophobic and racist, or do their opiniouns not count

and if you care to look on johann hari's website, he agrees with me, he is one of the so called opponents—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.183.191 (talk • contribs)

• As a matter of fact, their opinions don't count, because they're not notable. Never heard of Johann Hari or his website, can you provide a link please? Demiurge 18:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved, but I assume the reference it to the (english) independent journalist? [13] ClemMcGann 18:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Johann Hari is indeed notable, being an established, almost daily, commentator in the Indie (UK) and having a well-read blog. His own Blog/website is here, while his columns for the indie can be accessed here. He also appears to have written for The Guardian as well as the New Statesman. Wikipedia has an article about him Here. Criticism of him can be read here and here. SourceWatch has a piece on him here--Irishpunktom\^talk 09:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mauberley 20:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)I object to your statement that 'As a matter of fact, their opinions don't count, because they're not notable.' Level of 'notability' is surely subjective. For instance, I think you're a little squirt Demiurge, but that doesn't stop you thinking you are quite notable. Conversely, you may never have heard of Florence O'Donoghue, whom I believe is notable, but that doesn't make him notable in your eyes, nor should it. I don't read blogs, I don't really even read newspapers any more, and seldom watch television unless it's football. Instead I trust the opinions I form with my intuition and the advice of the few people I trust - does that mean that I have nothing to add here? Should I start reading the Daily Mail so I can cite some notable people? A Wiki is an aggregation of all human knowledge, not those of the elect. For instance, if I was witness to a key event in history, I could write down what I saw and add it to the body of human knowledge we find on Wiki. You however, seem to demand that I cite some book or newspaper as a source. I'm sorry but I fail to see how that improves the quality of the information an individual can provide first hand. After all, is not a book or magazine just some place where another (no doubt 'notable' - or 'advantaged') individual writes down their opinions? And does the Daily Mail always provide citations? Sorry, I think you're wrong about the Daily Hell (to give it it's correct name). Mauberley 20:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What is your warning about? What is wrong with what I wrote? --Paul Le Cont 17:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Don't play dumb with me. Any more "BJK" edits and you're liable to be blocked. Demiurge 17:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What does POV mean? I noticed you reverted my edit to Celtic as POV even though I provided a source. I take it POV means information that may damage Celtic? Who is going to block me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Le Cont (talk • contribs)
    • No, POV means edits that break WP:NPOV. Specifically, that minor incident does not deserve the prominence you gave it (and another editor has agreed with me and moved it to the History of Celtic F.C.). It has nothing to do with information which damages Celtic — if you check my history, you'll see that I have reverted anti-Rangers bias and vandalism on Rangers F.C. on multiple occasions [14][15][16][17], as well as reverting pro-Celtic bias on the Celtic article [18] Demiurge 11:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Right here - Alison^✍ 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• And thanks for reporting Robert on his impersonation of my account. Appreciate it! :) - Alison^✍ 21:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded Ivana Bacik's image from her own website and accredited as such to the best of my knowledge(I find Wikipedia's licences don't take this into account much). I'm part of her campaign team in Trinity College Dublin for the Senate elections. --GÓM 13:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for providing the source, however www.ivanabacik.com doesn't provide a copyright statement that would allow Wikipedia to use this image. Do you happen to know who owns the copyright on this image? If you could get them to release the photo under a suitable license, that would solve the problem. Demiurge 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Dick Cheney on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. I'll bring the food 12:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think you must have accidentally reverted my revert of the vandalism by 84.203.3.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It's now back to the unvandalised version, thanks to User:Stephenb. Demiurge 12:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's what I figured, too :-) Stephenb (Talk) 12:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

		Football (soccer) barnstar
		For your work in helping keep Hibernian and Celtic's articles NPOV Guinnog 10:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No I am not. I dont know what you are talking about. I thought those were the right tags for those images. If they are not please delete them. I went to CTYI. I saw that there was a discussion on the American CTY page that the article should be split into a CTY Culture page and I thought that it would be a good idea for the CTYI page since there was no Culture sections. If it is breaking any rules then I am sorry and please make any adjustments necessary to my mistakes. I am new here. I must admit from reading your discussion page that I admire your strong zeal and work ethic on wikipedia. I am rather surprised you have not received an award for it. Exiledone- Exiledone 16:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you've tagged a couple of images for speedy deletion with the reason "false licensing tag". Unfortunately that is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion of an image. I have removed the tags from the images. Thanks, Gwernol 04:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about the Ken Loach image: I've deleted it under CSD:I3. I agree the PD tag for the Eva Gore-Booth image is likely inocrrect. However WP:CSD:I3 does not apply to that image since it is not an "image licensed as "for non-commercial use only"" etc. The best thing to do with that image is to list it on Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images with the {{PUIdisputed}} tag. Gwernol 16:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Silly little bigot - why does an Irish poster have to be an authority on a Scottish football team? Why is he always threatening to ban people who disagree with him or accidentaly delete content?

OK - answer this please. Did the PIRA have a violent campaign or a terrorist campaign. I know your answer as you keep removing the term terrorist from any amendments made, which leads me back to my view that you are a bigot and should not be involved in Wikipedia.

OK - answer this please. Did the PIRA have a violent campaign or a terrorist campaign?