This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.
You are not a censor
To presume that the youtube link to Twinks abusive phone call is not genuine is disingenuous in the extreme. Nobody has ever challenged the veracity of the call. This call has been widely commented on in print and broadcast media. The repeated reference to Agnew's new child as bastard is unacceptable and the removal of this is akin to censorship.
Accordingly reversion is in order.
194.46.191.242 10:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Read WP:LIVING. There is no confirmation from a reliable source that the YouTube link is the call made by Twink. Demiurge 10:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Reversion of Bertie Ahern
Once again your contribution is to delete. Why don't you improve the article. The reference to his speech has been in the article since at least last January until you censored it.
Are you saying that Bertigate and Bertispeak are original research? You state reason for revert is no source quoted.
A quick search for Bertispeak gave
http://www.95fm.ie/newsroom/comments.asp?pt=n&id=54161&ps=11 As previous poster said "improve the article"
Bertigate on Google reveals links also.
Why did you not look them up yourself?.
Your reversion is akin to censorship and border on vandalism.
Can you please now edit the article quoting sources that you can find easily.
It's not my job to find your sources for you. If you want this info included, it's up to you to source it properly. WP:RS: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs should not be used as primary or secondary sources". Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy before you accuse other users of vandalism -- see Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not. Accusing other good-faith editors of vandalism is a personal attack and will not be tolerated. I note that you have been warned about this before. Demiurge 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Your last edits of Bertie Ahern have been overwhelmingly reversions. (7 out of 9 on history page.) Your contributions are negative, not in accord with community spirit of wiki..
Please improve on a community basis, don't criticise or threaten, don't censor just edit positively.
Northern Ireland does not belong to you; you are not the final arbiter of all that is said on Wikipedia about NI, so either catch yourself on or push off and stop vandalising other people's work and links you jumped up little toerag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.208.76 (talk • contribs)
Please read WP:NPA - Alison✍ 14:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
In what way is that page supposed to handle persistant breaches of NPOV by Demiurge? Alright, he may or may not be a toerag, I'll grant you that, but he is certainly jumped up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.208.76 (talk • contribs)
I see no POV there. What I do see is persistent revert-warring and pushing of your own personal agenda. Not good - Alison✍ 15:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Drogheda
Hi mate- I see you reverted a revision to the Drogheda page with the message:
"Revert to revision 75607604 dated 2006-09-14 00:06:46 by Downunda using popups"
For the record, that revision (vandalsim) was not done by me but by 62.40.38.38. It's probably neither here nor there but I just thought I would clarify the matter.
Mate, you are completely hipocritical. You claim the use of An Sé Chontae is political POV. It isn't. It may be considered political by some but then again anything to do with Northern Ireland is considered political by some. You have changed my work more times that I changed yours. Seamus2602 22:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not Seamus2602 or Demiurge is correct, you're both in danger of violating WP:3RR. Knock it off.... (As an American admin, may I be considered neutral?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You might be interested in a RM going on at talk:Prime minister (sic). Some individuals moved the page to that ridiculous name (if it stays at that form WP will be a laughing stock!) Feel free to contribute to the debate if you wish. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry
OK Sorry. Can I ask you what tag was appropriate? - Exiledone 11:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't have copyright permission to use that image, so you're not allowed upload it at all, sorry. Note that if you can't find a license or copyright statement for an image, that does not mean you can assume it is public domain, or make up your own tag for it. Demiurge 12:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
RE: Rangers + Richard Gough Edit - 3rd September 1256
Hi there Demi. I edited Richard Gough and Rangers FC yesterday and I see you've reverted them. I have no problem with that, and expected it to happen fairly quickly. But I do have a problem with self-righteous prima donnas spoiling everyone's fun - so please do not threaten me with a block again. Wikipedia will get many a serious entry from me in the future, and will not suffer too much if fans of opposing football teams occasionally use it to continue their humorous dialogue. It is often those who are most po-faced on these issues who cause the most trouble. So kindly desist from the high handed moralising in future. On the other hand, I have looked at some of your work on here and I am very impressed. You are clearly a very knowledgeable and worthwhile human being. Don't ruin it with over-bearing and incommensurable fractiousness.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.23.108 (talk • contribs)
Mauberley 20:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)I'm bricking it. For a start it wasn't sectarian. It was banter. I'm an agnostic and I've no time for religious bigotry of any description. I've also got no time for people who don't have a sense of humour. I'm going to edit the rules of this place to include the possibility of taking action against peope without a sense of humour.
Regarding Image:Eveenslersalmahayekvdayharlem.jpg and Image:EvaGoreBooth1a.jpg
In regards to it`s copyright I assumed "This material in this site is provided solely for educational, informational and support purposes" was a release into the public domain for non-commercial purposes - Exiledone 14:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This is incorrect. Unless the site both owns the original copyright andexplicitly says "public domain" or words to the effect of "you can copy and reuse this material for any purpose whatsoever" it's not public domain. Demiurge 14:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Also Eva Gore-Booth died on the 30th June 1926. It was a mistake of mine putting up circa 1930. I will find the date of the photograph and I hope the matter on that particular photograph can be setled.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Exiledone (talk • contribs)
Note that the copyright expiration is measured from the death of the creator, not from the death of the subject. So it's irrelevant when Eva Gore-Booth died, it only matters when the person who took the photograph died. Demiurge 14:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Noted - Exiledone 15:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Mark Reilly
I do realise that this can be viewed as spamming but whole articles are written about other social websites such as Facebook, Bebo, Friendster, Xanga, MyYearbook, Friends Reunited, and Classmates.com which all include links to the actual website but one name with a link to an article which does not exist and only the name not including a link or address to a website only giving a very brief description should not be viewed as spamming.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SimandSim (talk • contribs)
Those sites are all notable. Your site isn't, and neither is Mark Reilly. Not to mention that those other articles weren't created by someone connected with the websites. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your website. Demiurge 17:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually locally Sim and Sim (V2) Was a very successful social website mainly in the St Josephs CBS Secondary School with nearly all students asking What is Sim and Sim? At them moment Sim and Sim is currently only a hosting service as Version 3 is being built which will be aimed at an international audience rather than just the town of Drogheda
Vandalising Pat Kenny bio
Why are you deleting whole chunks of Pat Kenny's entry.
This is vandalism. Improve the content, don't censor.
Your opinions are no more or less valid than that of any other editor. Deleting chunks on spurious grounds leaves non-sequiters in the article.
Remember that you are not a censor and your actions are disimproving wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tayana (talk • contribs) .
Reverting Large Chunks of Joe Duffy
Why did you do this? I prefaced the arguments with "citation needed", you could have sourced the items yourself. It's this kind of behaviour that limits 'drive by' additions to wikipedia. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.43.138 (talk • contribs)
I refer you to WP:CITE: "any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." If these sources are so easy to find, why didn't you include them yourself in the first place? Demiurge 18:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Please can you EDIT sections of content, not DELETE them. The article is a STUB, if certain parts of the article don't fit in with your world view, EDIT them. Please, have some respect for effort people put into articles. We can't all spend large amounts of time on Wikipedia, and it is most disheartening to have people come along and block delete content, and also threaten users with banning/beheading. I retract the ad hominem attack on Demiurge, but it does seem from the articles above that I am not the only one to fall victim to your cackhanded type of 'censorship'. As I said before, it's this kind of behaviour that creates the impression that WP is a failed, idealistic experiment.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.43.138 (talk • contribs)
On the contrary, it's poorly sourced, biased articles like the one you've turned the Duffy article that create the impression that Wikipedia is a failed experiment. You still haven't sourced your edits properly (that newspaper article doesn't even mention Duffy by name), and your edits are full of weasel words and barely-disguised POV. However, to give you a chance to fix these problems, I won't revert it again today. Demiurge 19:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Gaelic Athletic Association edits
You reported vandalism of Gaelic Athletic Association. I reviewed the edits which seem to be the same insertion of the comment that "hurling" is also known as "stickfighting" or "bogball". A quick Google search seems to validate these alternative names. Following Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith policy, the new editor User:Paddy powers seems to be making legitimate edits. I suggest that you return to his talk page and perhaps provide an explanation of providing citations. — ERcheck (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Being unfamiliar with the terminology, I didn't find these additions to be derogatory. This does not appear to be vandalism — perhaps more of a content dispute. Again, I suggest that you engage the editor on his talk page, and/or on the article talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe if you should read their edits a little more carefully you'll change your mind about them acting in good faith. I cannot understand how you can see these as "legitimate edits". It is indeed the case that "stickfighting" and "bogball" are derogatory nicknames for hurling and Gaelic football respectively; it does not follow that inserting them after every mention of the proper names isn't vandalism. Imagine if we applied your reasoning to other articles such as African-American! Demiurge 10:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I did read the edit carefully. But again, assuming good faith, I would have been more clear with the editor that he should discuss the insertion of this terminology on the article talk page. However, since I am unfamiliar with the terminology and the degree of negativity associated with these terms, I did not remove any of the warning messages, nor take action. I note that another admin did impose a block. — ERcheck (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
If it is the case that these terms reach the same level of negativity that you are implying with your "African-American" comment, then I do agree with you that it is vandalism. — ERcheck (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, I probably should have made it clearer in my initial report that these terms were highly negative, and anyone who knew the terms would be likely to know this. If they were neutral or positive nicknames, I would have assumed good faith. Sorry about the confusion! Demiurge 10:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
No problems. I appreciate the fair and level discussion you've engage in here. And, I appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia free of trash talk. — ERcheck (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Wayne Biggins
Hi there. You removed the following unreferenced text as inappropriate under the WP:LIVING policy:
He went on to play for Celtic, where he his generally regarded by fans to be one of their worst ever signings, under the unsuccessful leadership of Lou Macari.
Let me just say from that outset that I think that was a fair move. However, you might be able to help me. Ever since I added cats and a place and date of birth to that article and saw that that remark was unreferenced, I've been looking for a reference, and while I find many remarks in fan forums etc, I don't know what could count as a verifiable reference in this context. I mean, one of Wayne Biggins main claims to notability is that he's used as an icon of Celtic's failure under Macari (a quick google search for "Wayne Biggins" Celtic will show what I mean). See, for example, this article which sarcastically refers to "the man, the myth, the legend that was Wayne Biggins". He is seen as a symbol of Macari's failure, and that is something that is important to mention in the article. But how to mention it? Apart from just stating the blanket fact that scored no goals in his time there. Robotforaday 18:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet accusation
Dear Sir or Madame:
As per advise received from a helper ("I suggest you discuss it with the person who believes you are a sockpuppet, I have no magic wand to make them believe differently." --User:pgk 15:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC))
I am contacting you directly to inform you that I am not a sockpuppet of anybody. I live in an apartment building filled with people who have their own computers, so maybe this explains your mistake as per my IP; as for my choice of subject matter if you had read my talk page you would know what my interests are. Just suspecting me of something does not give you the right to vandalize my work. Please revert your reverts to my edits, otherwise I shall have to seek the assistance of an administrator.
You can start by explaining away the evidence I added to your talk page. Why are you making the exact same style changes to ext links as an indefinitely blocked user who you just happen to share ISPs with? Why are you making very similar edits to the same pages (Queen Mother Moore, Lani Guinier) as other sockpuppets of his? Demiurge 15:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Robin Livingstone
I hope you are happy now that they have deleted Robin Livingstone's wikipage.
216.194.4.218 11:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
You have been indefinitely blocked, so under Wikipedia policy all contributions you make under any username or IP address will be reverted, and any articles you create will be speedily deleted. Demiurge 11:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
RFC for Devin79
Hi, as you know, we have both had to waste a lot of time and energy reverting the unconstructive edits of User:Devin79 aka User: 68.35.182.234 on the PIRA pages. Personally I have had enough and want to see an end put to the situation where this guy can just vandalise other people's hard work with impunity. So I'm going to file a request for comment to get him banned, but as you know, I need the support of at least one other user. So will you support me if I take this action?
I'd endorse an RfC on the grounds of violation of violating WP:CITE and engaging in slow-motion edit warring. The way he refuses to engage seriously on the talk page while changing facts and figures in contradiction of the properly cited references is very disruptive. Demiurge 09:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. There's more also;
POV pushing - a distasteful attempt to talk up the ammount of people the IRA killed and their military effectiveness. This is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Not citing sources, or even worse, making them up and lying about them. Or worse yet again, changing sourced info while leaving the source, thereby falsifying it. A violation of WP:V
Use of Devin 79 and 68.35.182.234 without acknowledging it, a violation of Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry.
Constant reverting of other people's work, even when he just wants to change a minor detail but in the process loses all the work done on the article in the interim. A slow motion (as you say) violation of Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule.
Defamation on the Henry McDonald page (you have to look up the history) whom he wrote was a loyalist apologist and was held in contempt by his journalistic peers. Entirely unsourced. A violation of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons
Finally, I don't know if there's a rule for this, but refusing to engage in constructive discussion about edits. See his talks pages for my futile attempts to reason with him.
There's no formal rule saying that you must respond to other editors on the talk page, but it is considered very bad form to ignore them. For instance Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army really speaks for itself — three different editors (myself[2], yourself[3], User:Fluffy999[4]) raise specific and detailed questions about Devin79's edits, only to be completely ignored as he reverts again. That sort of behaviour just isn't on. Demiurge 10:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, good, that's enough evidence I think. I'm going to contact some more interested parties to get more support. When I launch the actual RFC I'll give you a shout.
Jdorney 10:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Seems he's finally been banned. Woohoo!!
Jdorney 18:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Discretionary Plural
I live on the eastern side of the atlantic. The discretionary plural is awkward here because of the singular nature of the object of the verb is/are, that is, a club. Britain are an Island makes no sense while Britain are at war with France just about does.--Mongreilf 14:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Deletions from Irish War of Independence
Complete and unintentional accident - I was adding at the start and then when looking at the page the section on casualties had been cropped. Could have been an editing-bot as the page is now quite big.Wikiman 18:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your speedy rv of vand on GAA and others (Gnevin 21:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC))
In the Gaelic language article (as well as the Irish language article), it mentions that there are 260 000 speakers of Irish Gaelic in Ireland, and I would assume there are a few speakers elsewhere in the world as well. Should we put Irish Gaelic as one of the languages there, perhaps? — $PЯINGεrαgђ 18:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
You are allowing muddied waters too. Ireland was q-Celtic, Britain wa p-Celtic. They weren't the one lot as the article suggests. Oh, I give up on WP!!! 86.42.141.109 14:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
YOU
And what exactly is "spurious" about the legitimate placement of relevant tags on the vandal? hmm? Now, i find your past activity logs very curious. Tragic, but curious. IF..you would like to keep your adminship on Wikipedia i suggest you have a rethink and not misuse it.
Topov 13:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Because they're not vandalizing anything. A content dispute is not vandalism. You clearly didn't read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not, as I requested you do. Also your vague threats about "getting my adminship removed" don't really impress me, as I'm not even an admin in the first place. Demiurge 13:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Topov, you're quite willing to talk here it seems. I cannot understand why you are avoiding discussing your multiple reversions and censorship over on the Talk:Derek Acorah page. As mentioned there, since you refuse to engage in discussion, I have moved the process forward by asking for mediation. I hope that before the process goes any further, you can engage with myself and Stevepaget in a mature manner and stop adding illegitimate warnings to our talk pages.
Could you please refrain from reverting my improvements of this page back to an older edit which contains spelling and grammatical errors, missing links and photos in inappropriate positions? It is getting annoying at this stage. And you call me a vandal?--134.226.1.194 18:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I am sorry to have to highlight your vandalising of the page to you. Is this a mistake or an intentional vandetta against certain users? Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Derry City F.C., are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of myself and others. Thanks. --134.226.1.194 18:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Stop adding nonsense about sheep to the article and I'll stop reverting your edits. Demiurge 18:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
134.226.1.194
There seems to be a fair amount of reverts on the Derry City article between yourself and this anon IP user. Rather than revert their edits wholescale could you perhaps just remove the unsourced portions? I'm going to post a request on WP:RFCU so we can determine if this is another user trying to get round WP:3RR. Thanks/wangi 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a CheckUser request is required, this edit is conclusive beyond reasonable doubt. In any case, this is not about sockpuppets or the 3RR — it's about simple vandalism. Demiurge 20:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh I don't know - folk often latch on to others edits. Anyway, I'd much rather block the cause. Thanks/wangi 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Bertie Ahern
Dude, you're taking some slack over the Bertie Ahern patrol. So this is just a note to say thanks for your efforts. It's a dirty job, and someone's gotta do it. --18.242.7.128 04:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I refer to the article Gazzo K. I did not admit it was a hoax. Nato S indeed did make his debut on the Late Late by performing Gazzo K. Therefore I shall ave to remove the delete bos.
Thanking you. Spaingy 16:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at User:BlueValour/Sandbox. This is a cleaned up, fully sourced version of the article. What do you think, please. BlueValour 01:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks a lot better, however [5] (a bulletin board) and [6] (a self-published website) are not acceptable as sources under WP:RS. Demiurge 08:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Historical reference to City of Derry/Londonderry
Hi, sorry to drop this message onto your page but I'm trying to invoke a discussion on the WP:IMOS page as to what to use for the historical references to the city of Derry/Londonderry. I am trying to obtain a non-POV neutral discussion over what terminology to use for this or whether the IMOS as it stands should indeed cover this. Since you have been involved in discussions over Derry or County Londonderry and the likes in the past I thought you may like to get involved in the discussion. See the appropriate talk to get involved. Thank you for your time. Ben W Belltalk 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
County Londonderry
Does IMOS cover only article titles? I've got a comment on my talk as I understood the compromise to be County Londonderry in all cases within articles not just titles? ThanksWeggie 15:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
On reading the policy, it actually applies only to article titles. Demiurge 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Have you got a take on this? Derry Boi is changing all historic references to L/D now and and the Hughes hungerstriker page we have reversions to County Derry. There seems to be no consensus hereWeggie 22:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
If it were up to me, I'd apply the IMOS policy to article text as well as article titles. Using "Derry" on the hunger striker articles and "Londonderry" on Nigel Dodds seems to me to promote the mistaken view that these articles "belong" to the nationalist and unionist communities respectively. However, I'm not going to get into any edit wars over something this trivial. Demiurge 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep - I've rapidly come to the conclusion it's not worth the hassleWeggie 22:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Joe Duffy
I refer you to the following piece from the resolving disputes section of the Wikipedia policies: "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks." I know that in some cases you really are reverting vandalism, but please explain and discuss instead of instantly presuming you are correct and reverting. Cfslattery1 18:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure which edit of mine you're talking about, but if it's this, then I did explain in the edit summary why I was reverting. See WP:WEASEL for more detail. Demiurge 18:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Billy Wright vandalism
Same user PiotrIvanovich was also mucking with another article. I've warned him for both occasions. Alcarillo 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
OK damn you to hell. Thats just pointless and idiotic.
Exiledone 14:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent point, I've nominated that article for deletion too (as well as putting a personal attack warning on your talk page). Demiurge 14:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
OK Sorry but your actions are just completely over the top.
Exiledone 14:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
By the by one wouldnt be bored at CTYI.
Exiledone 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Golf?
I saw that change to Ireland by the anonymous user, but didn't revert because I wasn't sure of the edit's inaccuracy. I'm not much of a golfer, but it seems like golf is big in Ireland. Is it not? Dppowell 22:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The website in the citation doesn't include it as one of the most popular sports in Ireland. That's why I reverted. Demiurge 22:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
RE: Irish Demogaphics (American population)
I got this information from here. However, I'd say a lot of these 100,000 Americans would be cildren or grandchildren of Irish who emigrated to America. Jvlm.123 09:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, maybe he's counting dual citizens as American, whereas the census would count them as Irish. Or maybe he made a mistake and meant the number of Irish living in the US? In any case, he doesn't give a source, so the census figure is preferable. Demiurge 09:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, but would it be worth mentioning that for every one Irish person who emigrates to the US, three Americans immigrate to Ireland? (This was on television not too long ago, I'll look out for a source) Jvlm.123 14:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Demiurge! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page and please note this is VP 1.3 not 1.2.2 see this for the approved list. Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 12:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
\(caint) 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
